INSTRUCTIONS FOR THE AUTHORS and RULES FOR REVIEWING RESEARCH PAPERS

Applications for Publication should be sent through an automatic fill-in form at SPbSPMU Web-Site

INSTRUCTIONS FOR THE AUTHORS and RULES FOR REVIEWING RESEARCH PAPERS
Applications for Publication should be sent by e-mail to scrcenter@mail.ru,

or for authors understanding Russian – through an automatic fill-in form:

Subject a paper for publication via fill-in form

Brief Directions

Before starting to fill-in all author-related info and uploading manuscript with photos figures and tables please be sure to prepare all materials in suitable form. Do not forget to specify the author responsible for correspondence. Most of the information should be ready in Russian and English. Be sure to prepare everything in advance.
Names and Surnames of all authors together with all their Academic Degrees, Titles and Ranks, their current positions and addresses, personal e-mail addresses, phone numbers, title of реу paper and Summary (Abstract), that should completely reflect the contents of the paper should be ready in both Russian and English. All references in Cyrillics should be transliterated in Latin characters according to method required by “Scopus” Database.
The manuscript must be prepared as MS-Word file archived in .zip or .rar
The manuscript must conform to conventional regulations.
All materials subject by the author through the fill-in form at SPbSPMU Web-Sitewill be immediately received by the Technical Editor of the Journal (scrcenter@mail.ru) with simultaneous dispatch (carbon copy) to the address specified by the sender as the e-mail address of the author responsible for the correspondence to make sure everything has been sent correctly. All inquires regarding the sent manuscripts may be addressed to scrcenter@mail.ru
All manuscripts offered for publishing in the Journal are subject after primary screening to scrupulous double-blind reviewing by leading medical specialists (neither the reviewer knows who the author is nor the author is aware of the reviewer’s identity) guaranteeing objectivity of reviewing and high quality of every published paper.

Getting Manuscripts Ready for Publication

1. Manuscripts should be submitted in electronic form (archived MS Word file). Each manuscript includes parts as follows: title, authors names, text, tables, figures, reference list.
2. Abbreviations are not welcome unless conventional, all abbreviations should be deciphered;
3. All citations in the text are given in square brackets according to the place of the reference in the reference list.
4. All entries in the reference list should be made according to standard regulations
e.g.:

Books:

– Brandenburg J.H., Ponti G.S., Worring A.F. eds. Vocal cord injection with autogenous fat. 3 rd ed. N Y:Mosby; 1998
– Domeika M. Diagnosis of genital chlamydial infection in humans as well as in cattle. Uppsala; 1994.
– Brandenburg J.H., Ponti G.S., Worring A.F. Vocal cord injection with autogenous fat: a long-term magnetic resona. Laryngoscope. 1996; l06(2,pt l): 174–80.

Journal Papers:

– Simpson J. et al. Association between adverse perinatal outcomes and serially obtained second and third trimester MS AFP measurements. Am. J. Obstet. Gynecol. 1995; 173: 1742.
– Deb S., Campbell B. K., Pincott-Allen C. et al. Quantifying effect of combined oral contraceptive pill on functional ovarian reserve as measured by serum anti-Müllerian hormone and small antral follicle count using three-dimensional ultrasound. Ultrasound. Obstet. Gynecol. 2012; 39 (5): 574-80.

Internet resources:

– Kealy M. A., Small R. E., Liamputtong P. Recovery after caesarean birth: a qualitative study of women’s accounts in Victoria, Australia. BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth. 2010. Available at: http://www.biomedcentral. com/1471–2393/10/47/ (accessed 11.09.2013).
5. All figures and photos should be prepared bearing in mind they will be reproduced as black-and-white or in shades of grey.

RULES FOR REVIEWING RESEARCH PAPERS (INSTRUCTIONS FOR THE REFEREES)

  1. Research papers, received by editorial board, answering the subjects of the journal, prepared in accordance with the requirements, undergo a double-blind peer-reviewing procedure (neither the referee knows the authors’ identity nor the author are aware of the referee’s name)..
  2. In case of rejection of sending a manuscript to revision, author receives a reasoned reply.
  3. We examine only previously unpublished manuscripts.
  4. Head editor or vice-head editor determines, whether a research paper answers the subject of the journal and meets the requirements, and forwards it for reviewing to а referee with PhD or Dr. of Sci. degree, who is a recognized expert on the subject of peer-reviewed material.
  5. Referees are notified, that all manuscripts are the property of authors and contain information, that should not be disclosed. Referees are not allowed to make copies of articles. Reviewing is confidential. Breach of confidentiality is possible only when there is a statement for invalidity or falsification of materials. In all other cases it’s preservation is obligatory.
  6. Manuscript is passed to a reviewer without any information about the authors.
  7. Time constraints for the procedure of reviewing is defined by the head editor, individually for each case. Maximum reviewing period (between the date of acceptance of the manuscript by the editor till the editorial board makes it’s decision) is 2 months.
  8. The following items are pointed out in the review:

– compliance of the subject of the article with it’s title;
– assessment of the relevance of the content of the manuscript;
– assessment of the form of the presented materials;
– appropriateness of publishing the article;
– a description of the advantages and disadvantages of an article.

In the final part of the review of the manuscript, on the basis of it’s analysis, clear conclusions should be given, whether the publication can be published as is, or there is a need for its revision or processing (with constructive comments).

  1. If the review contains recommendations for editing and (or) finalizing an article, it is returned to the author with a proposal to take into account the recommendations in preparing a new version of an article or arguments to refute them. An improved paper is to be sent back for new reviewing.
  2. In case the referee does not recommend the article for publication, editorial board may send it back to the author to be rewritten, taking into account the comments made on it, as well as send it to another reviewer. Text of a negative review is also sent to an author.
  3. Manuscripts that receive contradictory reviews should be forwarded for additional reviewing. If a manuscript receives two negative reviews, publisher has a right to reject the submitted manuscript immediately and not to publish it.
  4. The final decision on publication of a paper is made by the head editor (vice-head editors).
  5. When a positive decision on publishing a paper is made, the author is informed. Text of a review is sent to an author via Internet.
  6. Originals of the reviews are stored at the editorial office for three years.
  7. On demand of the Ministry of Education and Science, the reviews are also sent to the Higher Attestation Commission and / or the Ministry.
Valid XHTML 1.0 Transitional Правильный CSS!
Copyright © 2017 Сайт Научно-Практического журнала для врачей "Педиатр"