Current issue

№9-10, 2017

Read

The review process

The review process of manuscripts, coming to the magazine staff "Clinical Gerontology"

According to the Rules for the authors, all articles coming to the magazine "Clinical Gerontology", are reviewed.

  1. The manuscript of a scientific paper, received by the editorial board, is studied by the managing editor for compliance with the profile of the magazine adopted the requirements for the design of material article (matching length of the article, the presence of annotations, key words in Russian and English languages, the availability of bibliography and references to it in the text and etc.). Manuscripts that do not meet the accepted requirements of publications, are not registered and are not allowed to further consideration, as notified to the authors.
  2. The managing editor sends the article for review to one or, if necessary , two reviewers from the members of the editorial board of the academic magazine (in consultation with the chief editor of the magazine) or the leading experts on the profile of this work.
  3. The review should be reflected: matching the material presented in the article, the profile of the magazine; assess the relevance of the content of the article: whether the level set out in its material achievements of modern science and technology; significance of the research (scientific, practical); a qualitative and / or quantitative evaluation of the above article of the actual and illustrative material; assess the completeness and accuracy of the data presented, the accuracy and use (or imposed) the definitions and wording; to assess the literary style of presentation, provide reasonable conclusions about the article as a whole, notes, specific recommendations for its improvement. The review should be completed clear conclusion (recommended for publication, modify, considered impractical edition).
  4. Review dates are determined head of the editorial staff, taking into account the planned timing of publication of the magazine.
  5. The review is carried out honorary.
  6. If there is a reference to the need to be fixed in the review of the article, it is sent to the author for revision. In this case, the date of admission to the editors considered the date of the return of the modified Article.
  7. If the article is on the reviewer's recommendations has undergone substantial processing of the author, it is sent for re-reviewing the same reviewer.
  8. In case of disagreement with the opinion of the reviewer author has the right to give a reasoned response to the magazine. The article can be directed to re-review for approval or the editorial board.
  9. The editors reserve the right to reject articles in case of inability or unwillingness to take into account the wording of the editors' wishes.
  10. The decision on the expediency of the publication after peer review adopted editor in chief (deputy chief editor.), And if necessary - the editorial board as a whole.
  11. Head of editorial staff informs the author of the decision taken under Article. In case of refusal of publication of the article, it will send the author a reasoned refusal.
  12. Small stylistic fixes, item or formal nature, not influencing the content of the article, made in an article without the consent of the author.
  13. Reviews of manuscripts are available edited manuscript authors and expert advice in the WAC at their request.
  14. Reviewers and editorial staff are not allowed to use the information about the content of the work before publication in their own interests. The manuscripts are the private property of the authors and are reportedly not subject to disclosure.
  15. Manuscripts accepted for publication are stored (along with reviews) in an editorial archive for one calendar year. Manuscripts are not returned.