- » Aim and Scope
- » Section Policies
- » Peer Review Process
- » Open Access Policy
- » Archiving
- » Peer-Review
- » Publishing Ethics
- » Founder
- » Author fees
- » Disclosure and Conflict of Interest
- » Plagiarism detection
- » Preprint and postprint Policy
- » Revenue Sources
Aim and Scope
Goals and objectives: The goal of the publication is to promote scientific achievements of Russian medicine within the territory of the Russian Federation and abroad. The publication includes reviews, lectures, and articles by leading domestic and foreign specialists in the field of fundamental and experimental medicine.
Both domestic and foreign scientists and physicians are invited to contribute to the publication in the journal.
Section Policies
Open Submissions
Open SubmissionsPeer Review Process
The editorial board of the journal Archives of Pediatrics and Pediatric Surgery reviews all submissions relevant to its scope to conduct expert evaluation. Articles submitted for publication in the journal undergo mandatory double‑blind peer review, in compliance with confidentiality rules and the author’s right to non‑disclosure of information contained in the article.
Peer review is carried out by members of the editorial board and editorial council, as well as by invited reviewers — leading experts from Russia and other countries. All reviewers are recognized specialists in the subject area of the materials being reviewed and have published works on the topic of the reviewed article within the past three years. The decision on selecting a particular reviewer for reviewing an article is made by the editor‑in‑chief, deputy editor‑in‑chief, scientific editor, or editorial head.
The journal’s editorial board sends authors copies of reviews and/or a reasoned rejection, and also undertakes to forward copies of reviews to the Ministry of Science and Higher Education of the Russian Federation upon receipt of an appropriate request. Reviewers’ comments are sent to the author without disclosing the reviewers’ names.
The decision to publish (or reject) an article is made by the editorial board after receiving the reviews and the author’s response. In some cases, the editorial board may send the article for additional review, including statistical and methodological review. The maximum review period is 8 weeks.
Each article is sent to two reviewers. A reviewer has the right to decline a review if there is a clear conflict of interest that may affect the perception and interpretation of the manuscript. Based on the results of reviewing the manuscript, the reviewer provides recommendations on the further fate of the article (each reviewer’s decision must be justified):
- the article is recommended for publication as is;
- the article is recommended for publication after addressing the issues noted by the reviewer;
- the article requires additional review by another specialist;
- the article cannot be published in the journal.
If the review contains recommendations for revising and improving the article, the journal’s editorial board sends the review text to the author, suggesting they take these into account when preparing a new version of the article or refute them (partially or fully) with solid arguments. Revisions should not take longer than three months from the date the authors receive the electronic notification about the need for changes. The revised article is then sent back for review.
If authors decline to revise the materials, they must notify the editorial board in writing or orally of their decision to withdraw the article from publication. If authors fail to return the revised version within three months of receiving the review, the editorial board withdraws the manuscript from consideration unless the authors have provided a written notification of their refusal to revise the article or a request to extend the revision period. In such cases, authors are sent a corresponding notification that the manuscript has been withdrawn from registration due to the expiration of the revision deadline.
If unresolvable disagreements arise between the author and reviewers regarding the manuscript, the editorial board has the right to send the manuscript for additional review. In conflict situations, the decision is made by the editor‑in‑chief at an editorial board meeting.
The decision to reject a manuscript is made at an editorial board meeting, in accordance with the reviewers’ recommendations. An article not recommended for publication by the editorial board will not be reconsidered. Notification of rejection is sent to the author via email.
After the editorial board decides to accept an article for publication, the editorial office informs the author and specifies the publication timeline.
A positive review is not a sufficient basis for publishing an article. The final decision on publication is made by the editorial board. In conflict situations, the decision rests with the editor‑in‑chief.
Original copies of reviews and submitted manuscripts are stored by the journal’s editorial office in electronic form for five years.
Open Access Policy
This is an open access journal. All articles are made freely available to readers immediatly upon publication.
Our open access policy is in accordance with the Budapest Open Access Initiative (BOAI) definition - it means that articles have free availability on the public internet, permitting any users to read, download, copy, distribute, print, search, or link to the full texts of these articles, crawl them for indexing, pass them as data to software, or use them for any other lawful purpose, without financial, legal, or technical barriers other than those inseparable from gaining access to the internet itself.
For more information please read BOAI statement.
Archiving
- Russian State Library (RSL)
- National Electronic-Information Consortium (NEICON)
Peer-Review
The editorial board of the journal Archives of Pediatrics and Pediatric Surgery reviews all submissions relevant to its scope to conduct expert evaluation. Articles submitted for publication in the journal undergo mandatory double‑blind peer review, in compliance with confidentiality rules and the author’s right to non‑disclosure of information contained in the article.
Peer review is carried out by members of the editorial board and editorial council, as well as by invited reviewers — leading experts from Russia and other countries. All reviewers are recognized specialists in the subject area of the materials being reviewed and have published works on the topic of the reviewed article within the past three years. The decision on selecting a particular reviewer for reviewing an article is made by the editor‑in‑chief, deputy editor‑in‑chief, scientific editor, or editorial head.
The journal’s editorial board sends authors copies of reviews and/or a reasoned rejection, and also undertakes to forward copies of reviews to the Ministry of Science and Higher Education of the Russian Federation upon receipt of an appropriate request. Reviewers’ comments are sent to the author without disclosing the reviewers’ names.
The decision to publish (or reject) an article is made by the editorial board after receiving the reviews and the author’s response. In some cases, the editorial board may send the article for additional review, including statistical and methodological review. The maximum review period is 8 weeks.
Each article is sent to two reviewers. A reviewer has the right to decline a review if there is a clear conflict of interest that may affect the perception and interpretation of the manuscript. Based on the results of reviewing the manuscript, the reviewer provides recommendations on the further fate of the article (each reviewer’s decision must be justified):
- the article is recommended for publication as is;
- the article is recommended for publication after addressing the issues noted by the reviewer;
- the article requires additional review by another specialist;
- the article cannot be published in the journal.
If the review contains recommendations for revising and improving the article, the journal’s editorial board sends the review text to the author, suggesting they take these into account when preparing a new version of the article or refute them (partially or fully) with solid arguments. Revisions should not take longer than three months from the date the authors receive the electronic notification about the need for changes. The revised article is then sent back for review.
If authors decline to revise the materials, they must notify the editorial board in writing or orally of their decision to withdraw the article from publication. If authors fail to return the revised version within three months of receiving the review, the editorial board withdraws the manuscript from consideration unless the authors have provided a written notification of their refusal to revise the article or a request to extend the revision period. In such cases, authors are sent a corresponding notification that the manuscript has been withdrawn from registration due to the expiration of the revision deadline.
If unresolvable disagreements arise between the author and reviewers regarding the manuscript, the editorial board has the right to send the manuscript for additional review. In conflict situations, the decision is made by the editor‑in‑chief at an editorial board meeting.
The decision to reject a manuscript is made at an editorial board meeting, in accordance with the reviewers’ recommendations. An article not recommended for publication by the editorial board will not be reconsidered. Notification of rejection is sent to the author via email.
After the editorial board decides to accept an article for publication, the editorial office informs the author and specifies the publication timeline.
A positive review is not a sufficient basis for publishing an article. The final decision on publication is made by the editorial board. In conflict situations, the decision rests with the editor‑in‑chief.
Original copies of reviews and submitted manuscripts are stored by the journal’s editorial office in electronic form for five years.
Publishing Ethics
The Publication Ethics and Publication Malpractice Statement of the journal "Archives of Pediatrics and Pediatric Surgery" are based on the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) Code of Conduct guidelines available at www.publicationethics.org, and requirements for peer-reviewed medical journals ((http://health.elsevier.ru/attachments/editor/file/ethical_code_final.pdf), elaborated by the "Elsevier" Publishing House (in accordance with international ethical rules of scientific publications)
1. Introduction
1.1. The publication in a peer reviewed learned journal, serves many purposes outside of simple communication. It is a building block in the development of a coherent and respected network of knowledge. For all these reasons and more it is important to lay down standards of expected ethical behaviour by all parties involved in the act of publishing: the author, the journal editor, the peer reviewer, the publisher and the society for society-owned or sponsored journal "Archives of Pediatrics and Pediatric Surgery".
1.2.Publisher has a supporting, investing and nurturing role in the scholarly communication process but is also ultimately responsible for ensuring that best practice is followed in its publications.
1.3. Publisher takes its duties of guardianship over the scholarly record extremely seriously. Our journal programmes record «the minutes of science» and we recognise our responsibilities as the keeper of those «minutes» in all our policies not least the ethical guidelines that we have here adopted.
2. Duties of Editors
2.1.Publication decision – The Editor of a learned "Archives of Pediatrics and Pediatric Surgery" is solely and independently responsible for deciding which of the articles submitted to the journal should be published, often working on conjunction with the relevant society (for society-owned or sponsored journals). The validation of the work in question and its importance to researchers and readers must always underwrite such decisions. The Editor may be guided by the policies of the "Archives of Pediatrics and Pediatric Surgery" journal’s editorial board and constrained by such legal requirements as shall then be in force regarding libel, copyright infringement and plagiarism. The editor may confer with other editors or reviewers (or society officers) in making this decision.
2.2.Fair play – An editor should evaluate manuscripts for their intellectual content without regard to race, gender, sexual orientation, religious belief, ethnic origin, citizenship, or political philosophy of the authors.
2.3.Confidentiality – The editor and any editorial staff of"Archives of Pediatrics and Pediatric Surgery" must not disclose any information about a submitted manuscript to anyone other than the corresponding author, reviewers, potential reviewers, other editorial advisers, and the publisher, as appropriate.
2.4.Disclosure and Conflicts of interest
2.4.1. Unpublished materials disclosed in a submitted manuscript must not be used in an editor’s own research without the express written consent of the author. Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not used for personal advantage.
2.4.2. Editors should recuse themselves (i.e. should ask a co-editor, associate editor or other member of the editorial board instead to review and consider) from considering manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies, or (possibly) institutions connected to the papers.
2.5.Vigilance over published record – An editor presented with convincing evidence that the substance or conclusions of a published paper are erroneous should coordinate with the publisher (and/or society) to promote the prompt publication of a correction, retraction, expression of concern, or other note, as may be relevant.
2.6.Involvement and cooperation in investigations – An editor should take reasonably responsive measures when ethical complaints have been presented concerning a submitted manuscript or published paper, in conjunction with the publisher (or society). Such measures will generally include contacting the author of the manuscript or paper and giving due consideration of the respective complaint or claims made, but may also include further communications to the relevant institutions and research bodies.
3. Duties of Reviewers
3.1.Contribution to Editorial Decisions – Peer review assists the editor in making editorial decisions and through the editorial communications with the author may also assist the author in improving the paper. Peer review is an essential component of formal scholarly communication, and lies at the heart of the scientific method. Publisher shares the view of many that all scholars who wish to contribute to publications have an obligation to do a fair share of reviewing.
3.2.Promptness – Any selected referee who feels unqualified to review the research reported in a manuscript or knows that its prompt review will be impossible should notify the editor of "Archives of Pediatrics and Pediatric Surgery" and excuse himself from the review process.
3.3.Confidentiality – Any manuscripts received for review must be treated as confidential documents. They must not be shown to or discussed with others except as authorised by the editor.
3.4.Standard and objectivity – Reviews should be conducted objectively. Personal criticism of the author is inappropriate. Referees should express their views clearly with supporting arguments.
3.5.Acknowledgement of Sources – Reviewers should identify relevant published work that has not been cited by the authors. Any statement that an observation, derivation, or argument had been previously reported should be accompanied by the relevant citation. A reviewer should also call to the editor’s attention any substantial similarity or overlap between the manuscript under consideration and any other published paper of which they have personal knowledge.
3.6.Disclosure and Conflict of Interest
3.6.1.Unpublished materials disclosed in a submitted manuscript must not be used in a reviewer’s own research without the express written consent of the author. Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not used for personal advantage.
3.6.2. Reviewers should not consider manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies, or institutions connected to the papers.
4. Duties of Authors
4.1.Reporting standards
4.1.1. Authors of reports of original research should present an accurate account of the work performed as well as an objective discussion of its significance. Underlying data should be represented accurately in the paper. A paper should contain sufficient detail and references to permit others to replicate the work. Fraudulent or knowingly inaccurate statements constitute unethical behaviour and are unacceptable.
4.1.2. Review and professional publication articles should also be accurate and objective, and editorial 'opinion’ works should be clearly identified as such.
4.2.Data Access and Retention – Authors may be asked to provide the raw data in connection with a paper for editorial review, and should be prepared to provide public access to such data (consistent with the ALPSP-STM Statement on Data and Databases), if practicable, and should in any event be prepared to retain such data for a reasonable time after publication.
4.3.Originality and Plagiarism
4.3.1. The authors should ensure that they have written entirely original works, and if the authors have used the work and/or words of others, this has been appropriately cited or quoted.
4.3.2. Plagiarism takes many forms, from ‘passing off’ another’s paper as the author’s own paper, to copying or paraphrasing substantial parts of another’s paper (without attribution), to claiming results from research conducted by others. Plagiarism in all its forms constitutes unethical publishing behaviour and is unacceptable.
4.4.Multiple, Redundant or Concurrent Publication
4.4.1. An author should not in general publish manuscripts describing essentially the same research in more than one journal of primary publication. Submitting the same manuscript to more than one journal concurrently constitutes unethical publishing behaviour and is unacceptable.
4.4.2. In general, an author should not submit for consideration in another journal a previously published paper.
4.4.3. Publication of some kinds of articles (eg, clinical guidelines, translations) in more than one journal is sometimes justifiable, provided certain conditions are met. The authors and editors of the journals concerned must agree to the secondary publication, which must reflect the same data and interpretation of the primary document. The primary reference must be cited in the secondary publication. Further detail on acceptable forms of secondary publication can be found at www.icmje.org.
4.5.Acknowledgement of Sources – Proper acknowledgment of the work of others must always be given. Authors should cite publications that have been influential in determining the nature of the reported work. Information obtained privately, as in conversation, correspondence, or discussion with third parties, must not be used or reported without explicit, written permission from the source. Information obtained in the course of confidential services, such as refereeing manuscripts or grant applications, must not be used without the explicit written permission of the author of the work involved in these services.
4.6.Authorship of the Paper
4.6.1. Authorship should be limited to those who have made a significant contribution to the conception, design, execution, or interpretation of the reported study. All those who have made significant contributions should be listed as co-authors. Where there are others who have participated in certain substantive aspects of the research project, they should be acknowledged or listed as contributors.
4.6.2. The corresponding author should ensure that all appropriate co-authors and no inappropriate co-authors are included on the paper, and that all co-authors have seen and approved the final version of the paper and have agreed to its submission for publication.
4.7.Hazards and Human or Animal Subjects
4.7.1. If the work involves chemicals, procedures or equipment that have any unusual hazards inherent in their use, the author must clearly identify these in the manuscript.
4.7.2. If the work involves the use of animal or human subjects, the author should ensure that the manuscript contains a statement that all procedures were performed in compliance with relevant laws and institutional guidelines and that the appropriate institutional committee(s) have approved them. Authors should include a statement in the manuscript that informed consent was obtained for experimentation with human subjects. The privacy rights of human subjects must always be observed.
4.8. Disclosure and Conflicts of Interest
4.8.1. All authors should disclose in their manuscript any financial or other substantive conflict of interest that might be construed to influence the results or interpretation of their manuscript. All sources of financial support for the project should be disclosed.
4.8.2. Examples of potential conflicts of interest which should be disclosed include employment, consultancies, stock ownership, honoraria, paid expert testimony, patent applications/registrations, and grants or other funding. Potential conflicts of interest should be disclosed at the earliest possible stage.
4.9. Fundamental errors in published works – When an author discovers a significant error or inaccuracy in a published work, it is the author’s obligation to promptly notify the editor of "Archives of Pediatrics and Pediatric Surgery" journal and cooperate with Publisher to retract or correct the paper, If the editor or the publisher learn from a third party that a published work contains a significant error, it is the obligation of the author to promptly retract or correct the paper.
5. Duties of the Publisher (and if relevant, Society)
5.1. Publisher should adopt policies and procedures that support editors, reviewers and authors of"Archives of Pediatrics and Pediatric Surgery" in performing their ethical duties under these ethics guidelines. The publisher should ensure that the potential for advertising or reprint revenue has no impact or influence on editorial decisions.
5.2. The publisher should support "Archives of Pediatrics and Pediatric Surgery" journal editors in the review of complaints raised concerning ethical issues and help communications with other journals and/or publishers where this is useful to editors.
5.3. Publisher should develop codes of practice and inculcate industry standards for best practice on ethical matters, errors and retractions.
5.4. Publisher should provide specialised legal review and counsel if necessary.
The section is prepared according to the files (http://health.elsevier.ru/attachments/editor/file/ethical_code_final.pdf) of Elsevier publisher (https://www.elsevier.com/) and files (http://publicationethics.org/resources) from Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE - http://publicationethics.org/).
Founder
Research Clinical Institute of Childhood of the Moscow Region
Association of Pediatricians of the Moscow Region
Author fees
Publication in "Archives of Pediatrics and Pediatric Surgery" is free of charge for all the authors.
The journal doesn't have any Article processing charges.
The journal doesn't have any Article submission charges.
Disclosure and Conflict of Interest
Unpublished materials disclosed in a submitted manuscript must not be used in a reviewer’s own research without the express written consent of the author. Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not used for personal advantage.
Reviewers should not consider manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies, or institutions connected to the papers.
Plagiarism detection
"Archives of Pediatrics and Pediatric Surgery" use native russian-language plagiarism detection software Antiplagiat to screen the submissions. If plagiarism is identified, the COPE guidelines on plagiarism will be followed.
Preprint and postprint Policy
Prior to acceptance and publication in ,"Archives of Pediatrics and Pediatric Surgery" authors may make their submissions available as preprints on personal or public websites.
As part of submission process, authors are required to confirm that the submission has not been previously published, nor has been submitted. After a manuscript has been published in "Archives of Pediatrics and Pediatric Surgery" we suggest that the link to the article on journal's website is used when the article is shared on personal or public websites.
Glossary (by SHERPA)
Revenue Sources
The publication of the journal is financed by the funds of the parent organization, at the expense of the publisher, publication of advertising materials, publication of reprints, article processment charges.
