Preview

The Russian Archives of Internal Medicine

Advanced search

Editorial Policies

Aim and Scope

«The Russian Archives of Internal Medicine»- the versatile journal which main objective is combination of clinical specialties in a common information space, formation of scientific communications and integration into world scientific process, broadcast of the advanced scientific results in applied medicine.

In the modern medical science it is tended to increase in level of specialization and subdivision of clinical medicine on highly specialized sections.

Along with it the role of internal medicine increases in integration of scientific research.

There is a need of formation of comprehensive cross-disciplinary approach for therapy, associations of doctors of various specialties for increase in effectiveness of treatment of patients.

The journal is focused on providing the scientific and practical, informational and analytical and methodical help in professional activity of experts, disclosure of the latest developments of medical science.

The journal publishes the original scientific articles devoted to the practical and theoretical questions of internal medicine which are carried out clinical, to pilot studies, the scientific reviews reflecting results of researches in various fields of medicine and pharmaceutics, a lecture, materials with the description of clinical cases, the data of biographic and historical and medical character and also by-products on all urgent problems of internal medicine.

On pages of the journal the place is provided for discussions and short messages.

 

 

Section Policies

ORIGINAL ARTICLES
Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed
REVIEW ARTICLE
Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed
ANALYSIS OF CLINICAL CASES
Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed
LECTURES
Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed
COMPETITIONS
Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed
КЛИНИЧЕСКИЕ РЕКОМЕНДАЦИИ
Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed
НОВОСТИ НАУКИ
Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed
СПЕЦИАЛЬНЫЙ ВЫПУСК
Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed
POINT OF VIEW
Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed
ANALYSIS OF CLINICAL CASES
Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed
HISTORY
Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed
 

Open Access Policy

This journal provides open access to all content according to following principle: open access to the results of research leads to increase global collaboration and knowledge exchange.

 

Archiving

  • Russian State Library (RSL)
  • National Electronic-Information Consortium (NEICON)

 

Peer-Review

This policy was approved by the Editor-in-Chief on 28.01.2025

In their work with manuscripts and peer reviewers and the peer-review process administration the editors of The Russian Archives of Internal Medicine follow the COPE Guidelines.

Peer Review Model

All manuscripts submitted to The Russian Archives of Internal Medicine undergo a mandatory double-anonymous (blind) peer review. Neither the author nor the peer reviewer is aware of the names or places of work of each other, and they communicate through the editor of The Russian Archives of Internal Medicine. All manuscripts are sent to at least two reviewers.

Peer Review Term

On average, the peer-review process in The Russian Archives of Internal Medicine takes from 1.5 to 4 months. This time also includes initial checks of the manuscript by the journal, assigning reviewers, writing the review, making corrections to the article by the author, re-reviewing, and inviting any additional experts.

Peer-Review Process

The author is sent a notification letter of receipt of the manuscript with the number, which will be referred to subsequent correspondence. The author can also track the progress of his manuscript processing through the journal's website.

The manuscript must undergo the initial screening process: the journal has the right to reject or send their comments to the article, which must be corrected by the Author before reviewing.

A peer reviewer of The Russian Archives of Internal Medicine is selected by the editor.

A minimum of two independent reviewers is normally required for every research article, and a statistics expert, if necessary. The third expert can be invited in case of conflicting opinions on the manuscript.

The author can be notified of one of the following decisions made by the editor of The Russian Archives of Internal Medicine on the manuscript:

Accept for publication. In this case the journal further works with the article in its original form to bring it in line with the journal's standards.

Accept for publication once the author has made some small corrections indicated by the reviewer. In this case the author is recommended to make changes suggested by the reviewer to the manuscript within 2 weeks. The manuscript is accepted once the changes have been made or rejected on a reasonable basis.

Accept for publication once the changes suggested by the reviewer have been made and after re-review. In this case the author is recommended to make changes suggested by the reviewer to the manuscript within 2 weeks. The manuscript will be reviewed again. The author will be notified of the final decision on the manuscript within 30 days.

Reject. In this case the author is provided with a substantiated refusal to publish the article. Generally, a rejection does not bar authors from submitting other manuscripts to The Russian Archives of Internal Medicine. However, if the rejection is due to any serious misconduct of the author, the Editor-in-Chief may choose to blacklist such author. As a result, the editors will not consider any further submissions by them. In case of a decision to reject the article, its archival copy remains in the electronic editorial system, but the editors or reviewers have no access to it.

At The Russian Archives of Internal Medicine, the peer-review process involves three rounds of review, which means that, if recommended to revise the manuscript according to the reviewers’ comments, the author has two attempts to revise the manuscript or to provide a reasoned refusal to change it. If the reviewer is not satisfied after the third round of review and send any comments, the article will be rejected.

The editors should be informed if the author is unwilling to revise the manuscript. In such case the editors will stop working on the manuscript.

If the author has a conflicting interest with a potential reviewer, the author should disclose this to the editor of the journal. If necessary, The Russian Archives of Internal Medicine will appoint another peer reviewer.

If the author disagrees with the opinion of a reviewer and/or editor, or a particular comment, he/she can challenge the decision. To do this, the author should:

- make corrections to the manuscript in accordance with the reasonable comments of the reviewers and editors; and

- expressly state their position and justification on the issue in dispute in a notice of appeal.

The notice of appeal must contain the author's name and the manuscript's title and number. If the reviewer/editor is not satisfied with the author's justifications the appeal should be submitted to the Editor-in-Chief. Decision of the Editor-in-Chief is final. One appeal with respect to one manuscript will be considered.

The Editor-in-Chief, deputy Editors-in-Chief, executive secretary, and Editorial Board members may publish their articles in The Russian Archives of Internal Medicine, provided no abuse of office exists. The manuscripts submitted by the journal staff will be assigned for the double-blind peer review exclusively to external reviewers. Any disagreements or conflicts will be resolved exclusively by external experts. If there are conflicting views regarding a manuscript submitted by the Editor-in-Chief, the final decision on its publication will be made by the members of the Editorial Board.

The articles submitted by the Editorial Board/Council members, Editor-in-Chief, or deputy Editors-in-Chief should indicate the authors' affiliation with the journal the Conflict of Interest section.

There are no exceptions to peer review based on the status of the author. 

Copies of pee reviews are kept on file in The Russian Archives of Internal Medicine for at least 5 years. The Editorial Office may send copies of peer reviews to the Ministry of Education and Science of the Russian Federation upon request. Reviews of the articles accepted for publication are published on Electronic Scientific Library portal (www.elibrary.ru) with restricted access.

Acceptance of a Manuscript for Publication

After the peer review process and evaluation by the statistics expert, all successful manuscripts are submitted for consideration by the Editorial Board that makes a decision on publication. Once the Editorial Board has approved the article it is included in the publication plan.

The decision to publish a manuscript is made solely on the basis of its significance, originality, clarity of presentation and compliance with the journal's field of concern. Reports of studies in which negative results have been obtained or the content of any previous articles is disputed should be considered in accordance with general practice.

Final decisions whether to publish disputable articles or not are made by the Editor-in-Chief or deputy Editors-in-Chief.

Pool of Peer Reviewers

All the submitted manuscripts are reviewed by external reviewers experienced in the relevant field who have published works on the topic of the manuscript under review within the last 3 years.

If the topic of the manuscript is very narrow and/or its author declares a potential conflict of interest with external reviewers, the editors may involve the Editorial Board and/or Council members in the peer-review process.

Reviewer Selection Principles and Measures Taken by the Journal to Ensure High Quality Peer Review

The Editorial Office of The Russian Archives of Internal Medicine ensures timely rotation of the reviewers working for the journal and regularly invites recognised internal medicine experts to join the pool of reviewers.

The reviewers are invited to work for the journal on the recommendation of the Editor-in-Chief, deputy Editors-in-Chief, Editorial Board/Council members, and authors.

The executive editor of the journal routinely monitors the Scopus, Web of Science, and RISC databases for publications related to the focus area of the journal and send collaboration invitations to the authors of relevant publications.

The first report of a peer reviewer is evaluated using the following algorithm:

  1. Did the reviewer discuss the importance of the research question?
  2. Did the reviewer discuss the originality of the manuscript?
  3. Did the reviewer clearly identify the strengths and weaknesses of the research (study design, data collection, and data analysis)?
  4. Did the reviewer make specific and useful comments on the writing, structure, tables, and figures in the manuscript?
  5. Were the comments of the reviewer constructive?
  6. Did the reviewer supply appropriate evidence using examples from the article to substantiate their comments?
  7. Did the reviewer comment on the author’s interpretation of the results?
  8. The overall quality of the report.

The score range for each question is 1 to 5, where 1 is the lowest score and 5 is the highest score.

If the editors are not satisfied with the report, they cease to work with the reviewer.

The editors of The Russian Archives of Internal Medicine are entitled to use the above algorithm to evaluate the quality of an unrestricted number of reports of all reviewers working for the journal.

How to Find Peer Reviewers

At The Russian Archives of Internal Medicine, the editors consider the peer review one of the most important processes for the journal; they value the expertise and time of the reviewers involved.

Publications of the peer reviewers of The Russian Archives of Internal Medicine are given priority.

Confidentiality

The editors of The Russian Archives of Internal Medicine keep personal data of peer reviewers and authors confidential.

All manuscripts are treated by The Russian Archives of Internal Medicine as confidential documents. The Editorial Office expects that the reviewers will not share or discuss them with third parties, unless authorised by the editor.

The reviewers can only involve third parties in the peer-review process with the consent of their editor.

Responsibilities of Peer Reviewers

By giving consent to review manuscripts for The Russian Archives of Internal Medicine, peer reviewers agree to follow the journal's policies governing the assessment of manuscripts, preparation of reports, peer reviewers' conduct and ethics.

Peer reviewers should strive to ensure the high quality of the materials published in The Russian Archives of Internal Medicine, just like the editor of the journal. Therefore, peer reviewers should only agree to review manuscripts for which they have the subject expertise required to carry out a proper assessment and which they can assess in a timely manner.

Peer reviewers should inform the editor on all conflicting interests (of personal, financial, intellectual, professional, political, or religious nature), if any. They should seek advice from the journal if they are unsure whether something constitutes a relevant interest.

Peer reviewers should refrain from reviewing if:

  • they are in a superior or subordinate position or hold joint grants with the author;
  • they do not intend to review the manuscript, but want to gain sight of it;
  • the manuscript is very similar to one they have in preparation; or
  • the manuscript is very similar to one they have under consideration.

Peer reviewers should inform the editor of their consent to review the manuscript, and they should complete the review within the time limits specified by the editor. When unable to review, they should recommend an alternative peer reviewer to the editor.

Peer reviewers may not use their status for personal purposes or impose references to their own publications on the authors.

All materials that peer reviewers receive from the editor of the journal are strictly confidential. Peer reviewers should not share these materials with third parties or involve anyone else in the review of a manuscript without the consent of the editor of The Russian Archives of Internal Medicine.

On being approached to review peer reviewers should:

  • declare if they do not have the subject expertise required to carry out the review or if they are able to assess only part of the manuscript, outlining clearly the areas for which they have the relevant expertise;
  • only agree to review a manuscript if they are fairly confident they can return a review within the proposed or mutually agreed time-frame, informing the journal promptly if they require an extension;
  • declare any potentially conflicting or competing interests (which may, for example, be personal, financial, intellectual, professional, political or religious), seeking advice from the journal if they are unsure whether something constitutes a relevant interest;
  • review afresh any manuscript they have previously reviewed for another journal as it may have changed between the two submissions and the journals’ criteria for evaluation and acceptance may be different;
  • decline to review if they feel unable to provide a fair and unbiased review;
  • decline to review if they have been involved with any of the work in the manuscript or its reporting;
  • decline to review if asked to review a manuscript that is very similar to one they have in preparation or under consideration at another journal;
  • decline to review if they have issues with the peer-review model used by the journal that would either affect their review or cause it to be invalidated because of their inability to comply with the journal’s review policies.

During review peer reviewers should:

  • notify the journal immediately and seek advice if they discover either a conflicting interest that wasn’t apparent when they agreed to the review or anything that might prevent them providing a fair and unbiased review;
  • refrain from looking at the manuscript and associated material while awaiting instructions from the journal on issues that might cause the request to review to be rescinded;
  • read the manuscript, ancillary material (e.g. reviewer instructions, required ethics and policy statements, supplemental data files) and journal instructions thoroughly, getting back to the journal if anything is not clear and requesting any missing or incomplete items they need to carry out a full review;
  • notify the journal as soon as possible if they find they do not have the expertise to assess all aspects of the manuscript; they shouldn’t wait until submitting their review as this will unduly delay the review process;
  • not involve anyone else in the review of a manuscript, including junior researchers they are mentoring, without first obtaining permission from the journal; the names of any individuals who have helped them with the review should be included with the returned review so that they are associated with the manuscript in the journal’s records and can also receive due credit for their efforts;
  • keep all manuscript and review details confidential;
  • contact the journal if circumstances arise that will prevent them from submitting a timely review, providing an accurate estimate of the time they will need to do a review if still asked to do so;
  • if they suspect the identity of the author(s) notify the journal if this knowledge raises any potential conflict of interest;
  • notify the journal immediately if they come across any irregularities, have concerns about ethical aspects of the work, are aware of substantial similarity between the manuscript and a concurrent submission to another journal or a published article, or suspect that misconduct may have occurred during either the research or the writing and submission of the manuscript; peer reviewers should, however, keep their concerns confidential and not personally investigate further unless the journal asks for further information or advice;
  • not intentionally prolong the review process, either by delaying the submission of their review or by requesting unnecessary additional information from the journal or author;
  • ensure their review is based on the merits of the work and not influenced, either positively or negatively, by any personal, financial, or other conflicting considerations or by intellectual biases; and
  • not contact the authors directly.

When preparing the report peer reviewers should:

  • bear in mind that the editor is looking to them for subject knowledge, good judgement, and an honest and fair assessment of the strengths and weaknesses of the work and the manuscript;
  • make clear at the start of their review if they have been asked (by the journal) to address only specific parts or aspects of a manuscript and indicate which these are;
  • follow the journal’ instructions on the specific feedback that is required of them and, unless there are good reasons not to, the way this should be organized;
  • be objective and constructive in their reviews and provide feedback that will help the authors to improve their manuscript;
  • not make derogatory personal comments or unfounded accusations;
  • be specific in their criticisms, and provide evidence with appropriate references to substantiate general statements such as, ‘this work has been done before’, to help editors in their evaluation and decision and in fairness to the authors;
  • remember it is the authors’ paper and not attempt to rewrite it to their own preferred style if it is basically sound and clear; suggestions for changes that improve clarity are, however, important;
  • be aware of the sensitivities surrounding language issues that are due to the authors writing in a language that is not their own, and phrase the feedback appropriately and with due respect;
  • make clear which suggested additional investigations are essential to support claims made in the manuscript under consideration and which will just strengthen or extend the work;
  • not prepare their report in a way that reflects badly or unfairly on another person;
  • not make unfair negative comments or include unjustified criticisms of any competitors’ work that is mentioned in the manuscript;
  • ensure their comments and recommendations for the editor are consistent with their report for the authors; most feedback should be put in the report for the authors; and
  • confidential comments to the editor should not be a place for denigration or false accusation, done in the knowledge that the authors will not see these comments.

Post review peer reviewers should:

  • continue to keep details of the manuscript and its review confidential;
  • respond promptly if contacted by the journal about matters related to their review of a manuscript and provide the information required;
  • contact the journal if anything relevant comes to light after they have submitted their review that might affect their original feedback and recommendations;
  • read the reviews from the other reviewers, if these are provided by the journal, to improve their own understanding of the topic or the decision reached; and
  • try to accommodate requests from journals to review revisions or resubmissions of manuscripts they have reviewed.

Recommendations for Peer Reviewers

The editors of the journal ask peer reviewers to pay particular attention to the Comments section to help authors improve their current and future works.

It is forbidden to use any AI tools or technologies in the peer review process. Supplying fragments of the manuscript or the review can breach the confidentiality of the manuscript submitted by the author.

Review Content and Structure

This section follows the recommendations of the National Electronic Information Consortium (NEICON). NEICON has approved the use of these methodological recommendations by The Editorial Office of The Russian Archives of Internal Medicine in its peer review policy.

A review can be both in free form and in the form recommended by the publisher for brief review (download the form) that contains questions that the editor needs answered to make decision on the article.

Below are 10 criteria for manuscript evaluation:

  • originality;
  • logical rigour;
  • statistical rigour;
  • clarity and conciseness of writing style;
  • theoretical significance;
  • reliability of the results;
  • pertinence to current research in the discipline;
  • reproducibility of the results;
  • coverage of significant literature; and
  • applicability of the results.

In addition to the brief review form, the editors of The Russian Archives of Internal Medicine recommend using the following review structure.

Comments for the Editor.

The Conflict of Interest section should describe actual or potential conflicts of interest related to the content of the manuscript or its authors, which may lead to a biased conclusion.

The Confidential Comments section is intended for comments that will not be sent to authors. It includes the peer reviewer’s final conclusion on the manuscript, assumptions, concerns about potential ethical issues, recommendations, and comments (e.g., the reviewer may advise the editor to request additional information from the author). The Proposed Decision section should contain a brief recommendation on the manuscript publication (i.e., "accept for publication", "accept for publication after minor revision", "accept for publication after major revision", "reject", "reject and invite the author to resubmit the manuscript for reconsideration").

Comments for Authors

The Introduction section contains the main conclusions and describe the value of the article to readers. The Main Comments section is intended for comments on the relevance of the article to the aims and objectives of the journal and on the level of credibility and ethical conduct.

Comments on individual sections (i.e., Abstract, Introduction, Materials and Methods, Results, and Discussion sections), pages, paragraphs, or lines of the manuscript are given in the Specific Comments section.

The Recommendations for the Author section should include the reviewer’s suggestions for improving the manuscript and, possibly, future research.

The Concluding Comments section should briefly describe the strengths and weaknesses of the manuscript without giving any additional recommendations.

Manuscript Evaluation Criteria

Relevance to the journal.

Peer reviewers should not waste their time reviewing irrelevant manuscripts, regardless of the quality of such manuscripts. Therefore, the first step is to determine whether the manuscript to be reviewed is pertinent to the subject area of the journal and relevant to the interests of the target audience.

Soundness.

Does the work meet the necessary requirements for the study design, methods, structure, content, and depth of analysis? Does the author adhere to the principle of impartiality? Are the results reproducible? Is the study sample adequate? Has the author analysed the sample in sufficient detail to be able to make generalisations from the study findings?

Novelty.

Has the research contributed anything new to the relevant subject area?

Ethics.

Does the study meet the requirements for originality? Has the institutional review board approved the study (if applicable)? Does the study meet the requirements for impartiality in terms of conflicting interests? Regardless of its perceived significance, the manuscript cannot be accepted if it is a redundant publication, contains plagiarism, or violates the basic ethical principles of scientific research (justice, beneficence, and respect for persons).

Evaluation of manuscript elements.

The editors of The Russian Archives of Internal Medicine recommend using the following questions to speed up the process of preparing an expert opinion and provide the most complete information about the article to the editor and the author.

Title. Does the title accurately reflect the content of the manuscript? Will the title attract readers’ attention?

Abstract. Does the abstract appropriately present the content of the manuscript? (Is the abstract structured? Does the abstract describe the aim, methods, results, and significance of the work?)

Are there any discrepancies between the abstract and the sections of the manuscript? Is it possible to understand the abstract without reading the manuscript?

Introduction. Is the introduction short? Are the aim and the research objectives stated clearly? Has the author justified the relevance and significance of the work via a literature review? If so, does the introduction meet the requirements for length? Has the author defined the terms used in the manuscript? If the manuscript is submitted to the Original Research section, does it have a clearly stated hypothesis?

Literature review. How comprehensive and complete is the literature review?

Methods. Are the methods clear? Would another researcher be able to reproduce the study using the proposed methods?

Have the authors justified their choice of methods (e.g. imaging techniques, analytical tools, or statistical methods)?

If the authors pose a hypothesis, have they developed methods that can reasonably test it?

How is the study design presented?

How does the analysis of study data help achieve the aim of the work?

Results. Are the results clear? Does the order of result presentation match the order of method description? Are the results justified, expected or unexpected? Are there results not preceded by an appropriate description in the Methods section? How accurate is the presentation of the results?

Discussion. Is the discussion short? If not, how can it be shortened?

If a hypothesis has been posed, is there a report on whether it has been confirmed or refuted? If the research has not confirmed the hypothesis, have the authors answered the research question? Are the authors’ conclusions consistent with the results obtained? If the results are unexpected, have the authors analysed them appropriately? What potential contribution does the study make to the field of research and science?

Conclusions. Have the authors acknowledged the limitations of their work? Are there any additional limitations that should be pointed out? What is the authors’ opinion on the limitations? What is the authors’ opinion on the directions for future research?

List of references. Does the list of references conform to the requirements of the journal? Are there any bibliographical errors in the list of references? Are the references cited correctly in the text? Are there any additional important publications that should be referenced? Are there too many references? Are the referenced publications still relevant?

Tables. If the article contains tables, do they present the results correctly? Should one or more tables be added? Are the data tabulated in a way that facilitates their understanding?

Figures. Are the tables and figures suitable for addressing the research question? Would different figures better illustrate the findings? Do the figures and graphs adequately illustrate important findings? Should changes be made to the figures and graphs for a more accurate and clear presentation of the findings? Can the figures and graphs be understood from the captions without reading the manuscript?

Conflict of interest disclosure. Is the information on funding and conflicts of interest clearly disclosed?

Peer Reviewer's Final Decision

The Russian Archives of Internal Medicine recommends using the following reasoning for the final decision of the peer reviewer.

Accept for publication. The peer reviewer understands that the manuscript is ready for publication in its current version. The work is sound, ethical, and significant for the scientific community. It complements previously published works. Its writing style is clear and concise.

Accept after minor revision. There are a few non-critical comments about the article that need to be addressed. These comments may point out poor writing style; lack of clarity; insufficiently developed structure; errors in references; or duplication of information in the text, figures, and tables. The article may be accepted for publication after revision and re-assessment.

Accept after major revision and another round of peer review. The article has serious flaws and errors affecting the validity of the obtained results. Such flaws and errors may include ethical issues, a poor research design, gaps in the description of research methods, poorly presented or misinterpreted results, an incomplete description of study limitations, contradictory conclusions (or conclusions refuted by the author’s own statements), a lack of references to important publications, or unclear tables and figures that require serious revision. After another round of peer review, the article may be accepted, rejected, or sent for additional review. This decision often requires soliciting additional information from the author.

Reject. The work does not correspond to the aims and objectives of the journal because there are irremediable flaws or serious ethical problems, for example, the authors have not obtained consent to publication of data (if required); the authors use unethical research methods; or the authors use discredited or flawed research methods (e.g., by ignoring a process that seriously affects the results). If this is the case, the author should not submit a revised version without a specific request. The peer reviewer should provide detailed comments justifying their decision as such comments may help the author to significantly improve their work.

Reject and invite to resubmit the article for consideration. The topic or the research question is interesting, but the author uses incorrect or unreliable methods, therefore, the data obtained are unreliable. This decision may also be made if the article requires multiple changes or if it is not possible to obtain the requested additional information from the author. The authors are encouraged to conduct the study taking into account the recommendations and submit new results for consideration.

Editing of Peer Reviews

The editors of The Russian Archives of Internal Medicine expect that peer reviews are written in a friendly tone and correct Russian language. Peer reviewers must avoid derogatory personal comments, insults to the author, and unjustified criticisms of the study aspects, the language and style of the manuscript, etc.

The Editorial Office of The Russian Archives of Internal Medicine attempts to send unedited reviews to authors. However, the editors may edit some of the reviews without sacrificing the meaning (for example, to combine comments on the same issue received from several peer reviewers or to transfer confidential comments from the section intended for the author, in case if the author can be identified, etc.).

If a peer review has many mistakes or an unacceptable tone, the Editorial Office of The Russian Archives of Internal Medicine has the right to send it back to the reviewer for revision.

 

Indexation

Articles in «The Russian Archives of Internal Medicine» are indexed by several systems:

  • Russian Scientific Citation Index (RSCI) – a database, accumulating information on papers by Russian scientists, published in native and foreign titles. The RSCI project is under development since 2005 by “Electronic Scientific Library” foundation (elibrary.ru).
  • Google Scholar is a freely accessible web search engine that indexes the full text of scholarly literature across an array of publishing formats and disciplines. The Google Scholar index includes most peer-reviewed online journals of Europe and America's largest scholarly publishers, plus scholarly books and other non-peer reviewed journals.
  • Dimensions
  • DOAJ
  • RNMJ.RU
  • VINITI RAS

 

Publishing Ethics

This policy was approved by the Editor-in-Chief on 28.01.2025

In their work with manuscripts and peer reviewers and the peer-review process administration the editors of The Russian Archives of Internal Medicine follow the COPE Guidelines.

Authorship, Contributorship, and Acknowledgement

Authorship

The Russian Archives of Internal Medicine relies on the following authorship criteria (developed and described in the ICMJE recommendations):

  1. substantial contributions to the conception or design of the work; or the acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data for the work; and
  2. drafting the work or reviewing it critically for important intellectual content; and
  3. final approval of the version to be published; and
  4. agreement to be accountable for all aspects of the work in ensuring that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work are appropriately investigated and resolved.

In addition to being accountable for the parts of the work done, an author should be able to identify which co-authors are responsible for specific other parts of the work.

In addition, authors should have confidence in the integrity of the contributions of their co-authors. All those designated as authors should meet all four criteria for authorship, and all who meet the four criteria should be identified as authors.

Those who do not meet all four criteria should be acknowledged.

Author and Non-Author Contributions

Contributors who do not meet the above criteria for authorship should be acknowledged, such as those who provided support, served as advisors, collected data, served as research coordinators, etc.

Author contributions should be specified with the use of the CRediT taxonomy (Contributor Roles Taxonomy - https://credit.niso.org/ Russian translation https://www.hfb-mgupp.com/jour/article/view/169/183). Permission to be acknowledged should be obtained from all acknowledged individuals.

Statement of Authorship

The editors of The Russian Archives of Internal Medicine require that authors submit a statement of authorship signed by all named co-authors together with the manuscript. A title page of the research paper submitted signed by all authors is a sufficient statement of authorship.

By signing this statement authors guarantee that:

  • each signatory fulfils the authorship criteria laid out in the ethical policy of The Russian Archives of Internal Medicine;
  • other non-author contributors have been acknowledged;
  • contributions of each signatory have been described and will be published by The Russian Archives of Internal Medicine; and
  • signatory takes responsibility for the integrity of those contributions.

On receipt of the research paper the editorial check of authorship and all required forms will be conducted. The research paper is dismissed in case the statement of authorship or the signatures of all authors are unavailable.

Disputes

When authorship disputes arise, submissions can be halted at any stage (review, peer review, editing or publication).

All co-authors will be informed on the authorship dispute by e-mail.

The editor of The Russian Archives of Internal Medicine may establish a firm date by which the clarification from authors is required. Failing which the paper will be withdrawn from publication with the appropriate comments. When a paper has already been published Online First, information on withdrawal of the paper from publication will be publicly available.

When a paper has already been published and an authorship dispute emerges, the editor of The Russian Archives of Internal Medicine has an obligation to publish an erratum, corrigendum, or retraction stating the reason for changes to the article.

The editors of The Russian Archives of Internal Medicine are guided by the relevant COPE Guidelines when dealing with requests to add an extra author or remove one or more authors before or after publication:

In order to prevent authorship problems the editors of The Russian Archives of Internal Medicine use the COPE flowcharts and draw attention to the following signs when reviewing submissions:

  • Industry funded study with no authors from sponsor company. In such case a more detailed verification of author contributions is required and further explanations may be requested from a responsible author, if necessary.
  • Name on author list known to be from unrelated research area. This may indicate guest authorship.
  • Unspecified role in acknowledgements. Individual thanked without a specific contribution.
  • Unfeasibly long or short author list which is unusual in a specific field or for a particular article type.
  • Questionable roles of contributors: for example, it appears that no one drafted the paper or analysed the data.
  • A similarity check through Antiplagiat system shows work derived from a thesis where the original author is not on the author list or acknowledged.
  • Several similar articles have been published under different author names or aliases.
  • Authorship changes without prior notification during revision stages.
  • Impossibly prolific author (for example, a department head or an institute director).
  • Corresponding author seems unable to respond to reviewers’ comments.

The editors of The Russian Archives of Internal Medicine expect that author's affiliates will be willing to get involved in the authorship disputes investigation process.

Complaints and Appeals

The editors of The Russian Archives of Internal Medicine are attentive to complaints over the conduct of editors and peer reviewers, such as breaches of confidentiality, undisclosed conflicts of interest, or misuse of privileged information obtained during peer review. Authors may also disagree with expressions of concern over some articles or irregularities in editorial processes.

All complaints should be sent to e-mail editor@medarhive.ru to be handled in accordance with the standard procedure. It takes about 7 days for a complaint to be reviewed. A complainant will be informed of any decision passed and actions to be taken, as well as the implementation timeline.

When handling complaints the editors rely on the relevant COPE Guidelines in the following cases:

  • handling of post-publication critiques
  • post-publication discussions and corrections
  • peer review manipulation suspected after publication
  • inappropriate image manipulation in a published article
  • fabricated data in a published article

Conflict of Interest

This section is prepared in accordance with the WAME guidelines.

Conflicts of interest are conditions in which people have conflicting or competing interests that may influence an editorial decision as well as the interpretation of data in an article. Conflicts of interest may be potential or perceived, or actual. Objectivity may be affected by personal, political, financial, scientific or religious factors.

Conflicts of interest may include the following areas:

  • Financial: this conflict arises when a participant in the publication process has received or expects to receive money (or other financial benefits, such as patents or stock), gifts or favors that may affect the work associated with a particular publication. Examples: payment for research, fees for consultations and public speaking, etc.
  • Personal relationships: this conflict arises in the case of personal relationships with family, friends, competitors, former colleagues.
  • Political and religious beliefs: adherence to one religion or political party may influence the outcome of an article that analyzes these issues.
  • Institutional affiliation: this conflict arises when someone involved in the publication process is directly associated with an organization that has an interest in the publication.

The editors of The Russian Archives of Internal Medicine may ask the authors additional questions or request additional information, if necessary.

Conflicts of interest may involve authors, peer reviewers, and editors. The following policy statements have been prepared based on the ICMJE recommendations.

Authors' Responsibilities When Disclosing Conflicts of Interest

When authors submit a manuscript of any type or format they are responsible for disclosing all relationships and activities that might bias or be seen to bias their work.

The author must notify the editor of an actual or potential conflict of interest by including information about the conflict of interest in the appropriate section of the article.

The author must also notify of no conflict of interest. For example, "The author hereby declares no conflict of interest".

Reviewers' Responsibilities When Disclosing Conflicts of Interest

Reviewers must disclose to editors any conflict of interest that could bias their opinions of the manuscript, and should recuse themselves from reviewing specific manuscripts if the potential for bias exists. Reviewers must not use knowledge of the work they’re reviewing before its publication to further their own interests.

Editors' Responsibilities when Disclosing Conflicts of Interest

Editors who make final decisions about manuscripts should recuse themselves from editorial decisions in case of a conflict of interest or if they have relationships that pose potential conflicts related to articles under consideration. Other editorial staff members who participate in editorial decisions must provide editors with a current description of their interest (as they might relate to editorial judgments) and recuse themselves from any decisions in which an interest that poses a potential conflict exists. Editorial staff must not use information gained through working with manuscripts for private gain. Editors should regularly publish their own disclosure statements and those of their journal staff. Guest editors should follow these same procedures.

Articles by the Editor-in-Chief of the journal, deputy Editor-in-Chief of the journal, members of the editorial board and the editorial council of The Russian Archives of Internal Medicine must clearly indicate the connection with The Russian Archives of Internal Medicine.

In the event that an undisclosed conflict of interest is discovered in an unpublished article, the editors of The Russian Archives of Internal Medicine act in accordance with the COPE guidelines.

In the event that an undisclosed conflict of interest is discovered in a published article, the editors of The Russian Archives of Internal Medicine act in accordance with the COPE guidelines.

Data Reuse and Reproduction

This section of the policy is based on the COPE data management guidelines.

Allowing access by authors to research data that substantiates the content of their publications is encouraged, but is not obligatory. The authors' consent to provide access to research data does not influence the decision to publish.

Research Data Definition

Research data includes any factual materials recorded on any medium used in the process of obtaining research results, in digital or non-digital form. This includes tabular data, code, images, audio and video files, documents, maps, processed and/or raw data. This policy applies to research data that may be required to support the accuracy of research findings reported in The Russian Archives of Internal Medicine articles. Research data includes information obtained directly by authors ("primary data") as well as data from other sources analyzed by authors during their studies ("secondary data").

Definition of Exceptions

This policy does not apply to research data that is not required to support the validity of the results reported in published articles.

Information about data that is not subject to disclosure may be transferred in the following way: posted in research data repositories with limited access; previously anonymized. The author may also make publicly available only the metadata of the research data and/or a description of how to access it at the request of other scientists.

Data Storage

The preferred method of sharing data is through data repositories. If you need help choosing a repository to host your data, see the list of repositories at: https://repositoryfinder.datacite.org/.

Data Citing

The editors of The Russian Archives of Internal Medicine welcome access to research data under free Creative Commons licenses. The editors of The Russian Archives of Internal Medicine do not insist on the mandatory use of free licenses when data is hosted in third-party repositories. The publisher of The Russian Archives of Internal Medicine does not claim ownership of the research data provided by the author along with the article.

Letters with questions about compliance with this policy can be sent to the executive secretary of The Russian Archives of Internal Medicine.

Ethical Oversight

The Russian Archives of Internal Medicine shares the view of COPE that publication ethics includes not only ensuring the integrity and reliability of published research, but also ethical behavior regarding the subjects of research. This category includes vulnerable populations, laboratory animals, human subjects (where appropriate research is conducted), sensitive data, and business/marketing practices.

Informed Consent/Consent for Publication

The Russian Archives of Internal Medicine requires informed consent/publication consent forms for any case report where an individual or a group of individuals can be identified. This requirement also applies when a report involves deceased persons. The consent is required in case of publication of case histories, photos, x-rays, etc.

Authors are required to submit a statement of informed consent obtainment from a patient or patient's representative to the editors of The Russian Archives of Internal Medicine. Obtainment of such consent will be included in the published article.

Informed consents must contain the following information:

  1. Patient's name and signature.
  2. If the patient is not the signer, the relationship of the signer to the patient must be stated.
  3. If one person is signing for a family or other group, that person should attest that all relevant members of the family or group have been informed.
  4. The form should include a statement to indicate that the individual or group do not have legal, mental, or physical capacity to consent. Any such reasons should be states (underage children, persons with cognitive or intellectual disabilities, or deceased persons.
  5. A person must have the authority to obtain informed consent.
  6. The wording should make it clear that, even with the best efforts at confidentiality, the journal cannot guarantee anonymity.
  7. Forms should indicate that the patient may revoke consent at any time before publication, but not after.
  8. Forms should make it clear what further uses might be made of the published article (publication in print or online).
  9. Forms should indicate whether the patient has seen the final version of the manuscript. If a final version has not been shown, it must be clear that the patient or proxy has agreed to publication without having seen the final version of the article.

Vulnerable Populations

Vulnerable populations include (but are not limited to) those who are unable to protect their own interests: pregnant women, newborns, children, fetuses in the womb, prisoners, the disabled, the mentally retarded, the economically disadvantaged, hospitalized patients in serious condition, etc.

Research in vulnerable populations should only be planned if these groups will benefit from the research.

One of the concerns is that not all research participants, for objective reasons, can understand all the conditions of the research. If informed consent cannot be obtained from the direct participant in the research, this consent must be signed by his or her legal representative. Particular attention should be paid to research involving children.

The editors of The Russian Archives of Internal Medicine support the COPE's position with respect to publication of research involving vulnerable populations.

Authors of articles must obtain informed consent for publication and report this to the editors of The Russian Archives of Internal Medicine.

Ethics of Research Involving Animals

Authors who conduct experimental research involving animals must indicate their compliance with the institutional and national standards for use of laboratory animals.

The editors of The Russian Archives of Internal Medicine recommend to follow the ARRIVE standards to ensure more accurate and correct submissions on research involving animals. These standards will improve the quality and reliability of the articles to be published and ensure reproductibility of the research findings.

Research Involving Human Subjects

In its work The Russian Archives of Internal Medicine is guided by the WMA Declaration of Helsinki – Ethical Principles for Medical Research Involving Human Subjects and is committed to ensure compliance with the ethical principles and rules of data collection for research involving human participants. Before start of the research the scientist must read the informed consent provisions of the Declaration of Helsinki and conduct the research in strict adherence to the following principles (provisions 25-32 of the Declaration of Helsinki are cited). While presenting results of experimental research on human subjects, authors must indicate whether the procedures performed comply with the ethical principles prescribed in the Declaration of Helsinki. In case, when a research was carried out without adherence to the principles of the Declaration authors must justify the chosen approach to the research and ensure that they received the approval of the Ethics Committee of the organization in which the study was conducted.

"25. Participation by individuals capable of giving informed consent in medical research must be voluntary. Although it may be appropriate to consult family members or community representatives, individuals capable of giving informed consent may not be enrolled in research unless they freely agree.

  1. In medical research involving human participants capable of giving informed consent, each potential participant must be adequately informed in plain language of the aims, methods, sources of funding, any potential conflicts of interest, affiliation to any organizations, anticipated benefits and potential risks, inconvenience that may arise from participation, post-research conditions, and any other relevant aspects of the research. The potential participant must be informed of the right to refuse to participate in the research or to withdraw consent to participate at any time without reprisal. Special attention should be given to the specific information and communication needs of individual potential participants as well as to the methods used to deliver the information.

After ensuring that the potential participant has understood the information, the physician or another qualified individual must then seek the potential participant’s freely given informed consent, preferably on paper. If the consent cannot be expressed on paper, the non-written consent must be formally witnessed and documented.

All medical research participants should be given the option of being informed about the general outcome and results of the research.

  1. When seeking informed consent for participation in research the physician or other researcher must be particularly cautious if the potential participant is in a dependent relationship with them or may consent under duress. In such situations, the informed consent must be sought by an appropriately qualified individual who is independent of this relationship.
  2. For a potential research subject who is incapable of giving informed consent, the physician must seek informed consent from the legally authorised representative. These individuals must not be included in a research study that has no likelihood of benefit for them unless it is intended to promote the health of the group represented by the potential subject, the research cannot instead be performed with persons capable of providing informed consent, and the research entails only minimal risk and minimal burden.
  3. When a potential research subject who is deemed incapable of giving informed consent is able to give assent to decisions about participation in research, the physician must seek that assent in addition to the consent of the legally authorised representative. The potential subject’s dissent should be respected.
  4. Research involving subjects who are physically or mentally incapable of giving consent, for example, unconscious patients, may be done only if the physical or mental condition that prevents giving informed consent is a necessary characteristic of the research group. In such circumstances the physician must seek informed consent from the legally authorised representative. If no such representative is available and if the research cannot be delayed, the study may proceed without informed consent provided that the specific reasons for involving subjects with a condition that renders them unable to give informed consent have been stated in the research protocol and the study has been approved by a research ethics committee. Consent to remain in the research must be obtained as soon as possible from the subject or a legally authorised representative.
  5. The physician must fully inform the patient which aspects of their care are related to the research. The refusal of a patient to participate in a study or the patient’s decision to withdraw from the study must never adversely affect the patient-physician relationship.
  6. For medical research using identifiable human material or data, such as research on material or data contained in biobanks or similar repositories, physicians must seek informed consent for its collection, storage and/or reuse. There may be exceptional situations where consent would be impossible or impracticable to obtain for such research. In such situations the research may be done only after consideration and approval of a research ethics committee."

Working with Confidential Data

The right to privacy of individuals or organizations involved in research is of paramount importance and should not be violated without their informed consent. Authors must take all necessary precautions to protect the information of research participants. Where necessary, authors must take measures to minimize any potential physical and psychological harm to research participants.

Post-Publication Discussions and Corrections

In some cases, it becomes necessary to make changes to an already published article. The editors of The Russian Archives of Internal Medicine support the practice of making changes to published materials and, if necessary, act in accordance with the COPE guidelines.

Any necessary changes will be accompanied by a post-publication notice, which will always be linked to the original version of the article so that readers are kept informed of any necessary changes. The editors of The Russian Archives of Internal Medicine use Expression of Concern, Correction or Retraction of an article. The purpose of this practice is to ensure the integrity of scientific materials.

All corrections, expressions of concern and notices of retraction of the article are publicly available.

What should authors do if they discover an error in their article?

Authors may discover a technical or semantic error after the article has been published. In this case, authors should notify the editors of The Russian Archives of Internal Medicine as soon as possible, especially in the case of errors that may affect the interpretation of the results or cast doubt on the reliability of the information. It is the responsibility of the corresponding author to ensure consensus has been reached between all listed co-authors on further interaction with the editors.

If you believe a correction is necessary for your article, please contact us by e-mail editor@medarhive.ru.

Algorithm for Making Changes to the Article

Correction

Corrections are made to the article if it is necessary to correct an error or add missing information that does not affect the integrity and scientific significance of the article.

Corrections may be made, for example, to the caption, information about research funding may be added, or conflict of interest information may be clarified.

If such changes are made, a separate correction notice will be posted. The general algorithm of actions is as follows:

  • correction is made to the original version of the article;
  • Crossmark entry is updated;
  • in the "Abstract" field of the original version of the article, a description of the change made is entered;
  • a correction statement is published, which contains information about the original version of the article, the names of the authors, a description of the essence of the correction, as well as links to it.

Spelling mistakes, misprints or other minor errors may not be accompanied by a separate correction notice. The website reports that corrections have been made to the article (without details).

Retraction

The editors of The Russian Archives of Internal Medicine should consider retracting a publication if:

  • they have clear evidence that the findings are unreliable, either as a result of miscalculation, fabrication of data), or any undeclared image manipulation;
  • it constitutes plagiarism;
  • the findings have previously been published elsewhere without proper attribution to previous sources or disclosure to the editor;
  • it contains material or data without authorisation for use;
  • copyright has been infringed or there is some other serious legal issue (e.g., confidentiality breach);
  • it reports unethical research;
  • it has been published on the basis of a compromised peer review process; or
  • author failed to disclose a conflict of interest that, in the view of the editor, would have unduly affected recommendations by editors and peer reviewers.

The editors of The Russian Archives of Internal Medicine act according to the following algorithm when it is necessary to retract an article:

  • investigate and ensure that retraction is necessary;
  • prepare a retraction statement, titled: "Article Retraction" and the article title, describe the retraction reason, indicate an initiator, and provide a link to the retracted article;
  • publish the retraction statement;
  • replace the original version of the retracted article, noting in the pdf file that the article has been retracted;
  • report retraction to databases; and
  • transmit information about retraction of the article to the Database of Retracted Articles.

The editors of The Russian Archives of Internal Medicine work with retracted articles in accordance with the COPE guidelines.

Expressions of Concern

The editors of The Russian Archives of Internal Medicine consider an expression of concern in the following cases:

  • Where concerns of a serious nature have been raised with respect to a publication, but where the outcome of the investigation is inconclusive or where due to various complexities, the investigation will not take place or be completed for a considerable time. At the same time, it is necessary to notify readers of what is happening as soon as possible.

Once the investigation is complete, the article may be amended or retracted.

Article Removal

Articles from The Russian Archives of Internal Medicine are removed only in extreme cases where the problems cannot be addressed through Correction, Retraction, or Expression of Concern.

An article may be removed in the following cases:

  • article contains content that could pose a serious risk of harm if acted upon or followed;
  • article contains content which violates the rights to privacy of a research participant;
  • article infringes other legal rights; or
  • article is subject to removal by a court order.

If an article is deleted, all materials are deleted from the journal's website, requests are sent to databases to remove the full text and post a statement of removal of the article.

Updates and Post-Publication Discussions

Addenda to a Published Article

The author may need to updated the article some time after it has been published. In this case, the editors of The Russian Archives of Internal Medicine may publish an addendum to the article. Addenda may be peer reviewed and are subject to oversight by the editors of the journal.

When an addendum is published, the file with the original version of the article is updated, and a notice about the addendum to the article is additionally published in the current issue of the journal, including information about the article, its authors, nature of the changes made, and a link to the article.

Post-Publication Comments

Comments are short articles which outline an opinion or observation on a published article. Comments are shared with the reviewers and authors of the article, who are invited to submit a response.

This author response again may be subject to peer review. The author of the comment will have the opportunity to respond to the authors again, after which correspondence between the author of the comment and the authors of the article can continue in private.

The decision whether to publish comments or not is made by the editor of The Russian Archives of Internal Medicine. All published comments, responses, and rejoinders are linked to the published article to which they relate.

Responsibilities of the Journal Management: Editorial Board, Editors, Publisher, and Owner

Principles of Editorial Board Formation

The editors of The Russian Archives of Internal Medicine are guided by the principles of COPE when forming the Editorial Board/Council.

Potential members of the Editorial Board/Council may be recommended to the Editor-in-Chief by the actual members of the Editorial Board/Council, reviewers, and authors.

Editors willing to participate in the work of the journal as a member of the Editorial Board/Council can send an application to the Editor-in-Chief.

All potential members of the Editorial Board/Council must agree to the following terms:

  • a member of the Editorial Board/Council of The Russian Archives of Internal Medicine cannot be a member of more than three editorial boards at the same time;
  • a member of the Editorial Board/Council of The Russian Archives of Internal Medicine cannot be an editor who is simultaneously invited to work on a special issue for another journal;
  • a member of the Editorial Board/Council of The Russian Archives of Internal Medicine cannot be an editor who is simultaneously responsible for making final decisions on the publication of manuscripts in another journal; and
  • all potential members of the Editorial Board/Council must be prepared to provide The Russian Archives of Internal Medicine with information about all potential and actual conflicts of interest (for example, about any activity in publishing scientific journals and books, membership in the Editorial Boards/Councils of others journals, as well as any conflicts of interest that may arise following their appointment).

Responsibilities of a Member of the Editorial Board/Council:

  • Review incoming manuscripts according to one’s own profile and in the absence of external reviewers. Each member of the Editorial Board/Council receives no more than 2 manuscripts a year for review. Peer reviewing must be carried out in accordance with the approved Review Policy of The Russian Archives of Internal Medicine.
  • Select reviewers for incoming articles at the request of the executive secretary, monitor peer review process of incoming articles.
  • Make decisions on the possibility of publishing an article after all stages of peer review. Decisions are passed on to the Editor-in-Chief, who makes the final decision on the publication.
  • Invite authors and reviewers to collaborate with the journal.

A member of the Editorial Board/Council may be dismissed for the following reasons:

  • violation of the publication ethics: concealment of any conflict of interest, information, or use of their status for personal purposes;
  • failure to fulfill assigned duties during the year without a good reason and without the consent of the Editor-in-Chief; or
  • at the request of the member of the Editorial Board/Council.

Privileges of a Member of the Editorial Board/Council

  • articles by members of the Editorial Board/Council of The Russian Archives of Internal Medicine are considered as a priority;
  • a member of the Editorial Board/Council can participate free of charge in events organized by The Russian Archives of Internal Medicine and the founding organization;
  • a member of the Editorial Board/Council can act as a guest editor for a special issue of The Russian Archives of Internal Medicine; and
  • information about a member of the Editorial Board/Council is posted on the website of The Russian Archives of Internal Medicine with the necessary links to profiles in databases, affiliations, and other necessary data.

Potential candidates for the position of a member of the Editorial Board/Council are considered at regular meetings of the Editorial Board/Council.

The final decision on admission of a potential candidate to the Editorial Board/Council is made by the Editor-in-Chief.

Responsibilities of the Editor

The editor of The Russian Archives of Internal Medicine is personally and independently responsible for making the decision to publish the article. The final decision on publication is made by the journal's Editor-in-Chief.

The editor of The Russian Archives of Internal Medicine is guided by the journal's policies when reviewing an article and deciding on its publication.

The Editor-in-Chief may discuss the article and the reviewer's comments with other editors and reviewers, provided that these discussions are justified and legal without using the materials discussed for personal purposes.

The editor of The Russian Archives of Internal Medicine is required to evaluate the content of a manuscript regardless of the race, gender, sexual orientation, religious views, origin, citizenship, or political preferences of the authors.

The editor of The Russian Archives of Internal Medicine must ensure confidentiality and not unnecessarily disclose information about the manuscript to third parties (with the exception of other journal editors, reviewers, the publisher and the owner).

The editor of The Russian Archives of Internal Medicine is obliged to inform the Editor-in-Chief about all conflict situations, as well as the discovery of critical errors or accusations of authors or reviewers of violating publication ethics submitted to the journal, in order to take the necessary actions in such cases: corrections, corrigendum, retractions, or expressions of concern.

The editor of The Russian Archives of Internal Medicine participates in the investigation into any ethical violations concerning manuscripts under review and published articles, and makes every effort to resolve conflicts as quickly as possible. When necessary, the editor of The Russian Archives of Internal Medicine will cooperate with the author's organization to conduct a more in-depth investigation.

Responsibilities of the Publisher

The publisher of The Russian Archives of Internal Medicine is responsible for compliance with all current recommendations and requirements for maintaining the integrity of scientific materials published in the journal.

The publisher follows the policy of The Russian Archives of Internal Medicine regarding the compensation for the preparation and publication of manuscripts, as well as profits from advertising and reprints. The publisher of The Russian Archives of Internal Medicine does not allow potential profits from advertising and reprints to influence the editors' decision to publish a manuscript.

The publisher of The Russian Archives of Internal Medicine does not interfere in the editorial processes, however, if necessary and at the request of the editors, can take part in the investigation into violations of the publication ethics, as well as send official requests on its own behalf to scientific and educational organizations, as well as other publishing houses.

The publisher of The Russian Archives of Internal Medicine is obliged to introduce industry standards into the work of the publishing house in order to improve the ethical component of the journal’s work.

The publisher of The Russian Archives of Internal Medicine is obliged to provide comprehensive legal support to the editorial board, if necessary.

Responsibilities of the Owner

The owner of The Russian Archives of Internal Medicine adheres to the principle of editorial independence: the director of the founding organization and its employees do not interfere in the editorial process.

The owner of The Russian Archives of Internal Medicine can recommend potential members of the Editorial Board/Council, reviewers and authors, but the final decision on the cooperation is made by the Editor-in-Chief only.

The owner of The Russian Archives of Internal Medicine does not put financial and political gain above the quality of the journal. The editors of The Russian Archives of Internal Medicine make decisions about publication of manuscripts based on their quality and interest for the journal’s target audience.

The owner of The Russian Archives of Internal Medicine does not interfere in the editorial processes, however, if necessary and at the request of the editors, can take part in the investigation into violations of the publication ethics, as well as send official requests on its own behalf to scientific and educational organizations, as well as other publishing houses.

 

Founder

“SINAPS” LLC
107076, Moscow, Korolenko str. 3A
info@medarhive.ru

 

Author fees

Publication in journal is free of charge for all the authors.

 

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 and Copying

The editors of The Russian Archives of Internal Medicine expect that manuscripts submitted for review are written in original style, without using previously published texts.

All works submitted undergo similarity check through Antiplagiat system. Results of the check through Antiplagial system are preliminary. An expert remains responsible for establishing the appropriateness and legitimacy of any duplication, citing, and self-citing, as well as the authorship of text fragments of a document under examination. Although there are no strict originality requirements, the editors expect at least 75% of manuscript originality.

The Editorial Office follows the COPE Guidelines in case of redundancy.

 

Preprint and postprint Policy

Prior to acceptance and publication in «The Russian Archives of Internal Medicine», 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 «The Russian Archives of Internal Medicine» 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)

Preprint - In the context of Open Access, a preprint is a draft of an academic article or other publication before it has been submitted for peer-review or other quality assurance procedure as part of the publication process. Preprints cover initial and successive drafts of articles, working papers or draft conference papers.
 
Postprint - The final version of an academic article or other publication - after it has been peer-reviewed and revised into its final form by the author. As a general term this covers both the author's final version and the version as published, with formatting and copy-editing changes in place.

 

Artificial Intelligence (AI) Policy

This Policy is in line with the approach of the World Association of Medical Editors (WAME) and the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and based on the materials of NEICON.

The difference should be made between automation and AI, these two notions cannot be interchangeable.

Automation refers to software designed to execute rule-based tasks without human intervention. Such rules are set up by automated system designers.

Artificial Intelligence (AI) involves building of intelligent systems, machines, and software that can mimic human intelligence and behavior.

For the purposes of this Policy AI is defined as Large Language Models (LLM), such as Chat GPT, and any other technologies that use machine learning, planning or navigation, natural language processing, or any other similar or equivalent technologies.

Acceptance by The Russian Archives of Internal Medicine of manuscripts written with the use of the AI technologies is subject to compliance of the authors with this Policy.

For Authors

The author(s) of a manuscript submitted to The Russian Archives of Internal Medicine are required to disclose and describe any use of the AI technologies in

  • the manuscript submitted, including its parts;
  • any other work of the authors that underlies or otherwise relates to the manuscript submitted; and
  • references that are cited, if known to the authors.

Declaration of AI Use

If AI was used for data collection and/or analysis, or hypothesis generation, etc. authors should describe this use in "Materials and Methods".

If AI was used for writing assistance (tools for checking, spelling, references, unattributed borrowings, etc.) authors should describe this use in the Acknowledgment section.

In other cases authors should disclose how the AI tool was used and which tool was used in the introduction to the article.

The AI declaration must include:

  • Description of a particular AI technology used (name, version and developer of the AI tools used. The application link must be included in the article);
  • Indication of the manuscript sections and extent of the AI tool use;
  • Description of what the AI technology was used for (reason for use);
  • Description of how the AI technology was used (purpose of use);
  • The article must be accompanied (as a separate document) with the text of chatbot queries and answers and how the AI generated results were analyzed by the authors.

Use of AI for Image Processing/Generation

The Russian Archives of Internal Medicine believes that sometimes the quality of illustrations can be improved through the use of the AI technologies in generation or processing of images. The Russian Archives of Internal Medicine allows the use of AI processed/generated images in articles subject to the following:

  • in case AI was used for image processing, such use must be declared in as much detail as possible as described above. An original must be submitted to the journal together with the AI processed image. At the discretion of the journal, both images (original and processed) can be published in the article;
  • in case AI was used for image generation, such use must also be declared in as much detail as possible with the detailed description of the purpose of generation, and a complete list of queries made in the process of generation;
  • all AI generated/processed images must comply with the ethical standards and values of human dignity, equality, and solidarity: avoid images of people who are in a struggling or vulnerable position or images that could entrench bias or stereotypes.

Authorship

AI programs cannot be included as authors or co-authors under no circumstances. AI programs cannot be included as contributors to researches or articles.

Responsibility

Authors are fully responsible for AI generated content in their papers. This includes the responsibility for accuracy, appropriate attribution of all sources and absence of plagiarism (both in the article and AI generated and/or processed images).

For Peer Reviewers

AI cannot be used in preparation of a review or while working with the text of an article under review. Supplying fragments of the manuscript or the review can breach the confidentiality of the manuscript submitted by the author.

If the peer reviewer suspects that the article or its fragments have been created with the use of AI it should be indicated in the review as affecting the accuracy and/or suitability of the article for publication.

For Editors and Publisher

The editors of The Russian Archives of Internal Medicine are not permitted to use AI in their work with manuscripts.

However AI can be used by the editors and the publisher in the review or publishing process: publishing house automation, search for potential peer reviewers, etc.

We are regularly reviewing this Policy as the AI technologies evolve.

 

DATA SHARING POLICY

Authors are encouraged to make the research data that support their publications available but are not required to do so. The decision to publish will not be affected by whether or not authors share their research data.

Definition of research data

This policy applies to the research data that would be required to verify the results of research reported in articles published in the journal «The Russian Archives of Internal Medicine». Research data include data produced by the authors (“primary data”) and data from other sources that are analysed by authors in their study (“secondary data”). Research data includes any recorded factual material that are used to produce the results in digital and non-digital form. This includes tabular data, code, images, audio, documents, video, maps, raw and/or processed data.

Definition of exceptions

The data that is not a subject to public disclosure may be delivered as follows: deposited in science data repositories with limited access or preliminary anonymised. An author can also publicly deliver metadata only and/or description of the method of access to the data under requests from other scholars.

Data repositories

The preferred mechanism for sharing research data is via data repositories. Please see or https://repositoryfinder.datacite.org/ for help finding research data repositories.

Data citation

The Editorial Board of the Journal «The Russian Archives of Internal Medicine» welcomes access to data under Creative Commons Licenses. Editorial Board of the Journal «The Russian Archives of Internal Medicine» does not insist on the obligatory use of Creative Commons in case when the data is deposited in the repositories of the third party. The Publisher of the Journal «The Russian Archives of Internal Medicine» does not assert any copyrights for the data submitted by the author together with the article.  

Questions regarding the observation of that policy shall be sent to the executive secretary of the Journal «The Russian Archives of Internal Medicine».

 

Statement of Conflict of Interest

Disclosing a conflict of interest is aimed at improving the quality of the publication process.

Art. 19 of the Federal Law of July 27, 2004 No. 79-FZ «On the State Civil Service of the Russian Federation» (as amended on February 14, 2010): «Conflict of interest - a situation in which the personal interest of a civilian affects or may affect the objective the performance of his duties and in which a conflict arises or may arise between the personal interest of a civil servant and the legitimate interests of citizens, organizations, society, the subject of the Russian Federation or the Russian Federation, which can to harm these legitimate interests».

A conflict of interest applies to medical subjects - a situation whose failure to highlight could undermine the author's reputation because of doubts about his impartiality in the event that he did not indicate the sources of his potential interest, it is the author's relationship both at the institutional and individual level, which can create a biased situation for colleagues from medical institutions, and directly for patients. A conflict of interest exists when a professional judgment about a primary interest (such as the well-being of patients or the viability of a study) may be influenced by a secondary interest (including financial gain or personal rivalry, see classification below). It may also apply to reviewers or editors (if they have a financial interest) not only to authors.

Classification of conflicts of interest (Federal Law of the Russian Federation No. 273-FZ of December 25, 2008 (as amended on July 3, 2016) «On Combating Corruption»)

Type

Characteristic

Personal

Personal relationships of editors, authors, reviewers, editorial board members, etc.

Commercial

Fees for articles, grants from pharmaceutical companies, lecturing for pharmaceutical companies, and other relationship with them

Political

Belonging of different participants of the editorial process to different political parties, different political views

Religious

Possible differences based on religious views

Ideological

Between representatives of different ideological directions

Academic

Something to personal, but including a competitive element

Intellectual

Theft of ideas, for example by a reviewer, in this particular case intersects with plagiarism of ideas

The author is obliged to notify the Editor of a real or potential conflict of interest by including information about the conflict of interest in the relevant section of the article. If there is no conflict of interest, the author should also report it. Example of the wording: «The Author States that there is no conflict of interest».

Reviewers should declare all possible conflicts of interest (see classification) and seek advice from the journal if they are not sure whether the situation is a conflict of interest or not. They should not participate in the consideration of manuscripts in the event of conflicts of interest due to competitive, collaborative and other interactions and relationships with any of the authors, companies or other organizations associated with the submitted work.

 

Advertising policy

The text was prepared on the basis of Recommendations on Publication Ethics Policies for Medical Journals WAME.

  1.  The editor’s decisions do not depend on the cost of advertising or reprinting.
  2.  The functions of the editor and advertising manager are separated. Advertisers and sponsors do not have control over the decisions of the editor, regardless of the conditions of advertising or other agreements.
  3.  Reprints are published only in the form in which they were originally published in the journal (including subsequent corrections), there are no additions and changes.
  4.  Restrictions on the volume of promotional materials: no more than 10% of the total volume of each number.
  5. The official advertising policy of the journal is available to all participants of the editorial and publishing process.
  6.  All advertisements uniquely identify the advertiser and the proposed product or service. In the advertising of drugs indicates the full name of each active ingredient.
  7. Commercial advertising (advertising module) is placed only on the second or third cover of the magazine, is not placed next to the editorial article or article, in which the advertised product is discussed, it can not contain links to the issue of the magazine in which it is placed.
  8.  Advertising content differs from editorial and other materials so that the difference between them is obvious.
  9.  Placed in the magazine advertising should not deceive or mislead, should not exaggerate the real characteristics of the advertised product, should not contain offensive considerations of a religious, racial, religious nature.
  10. Advertised products should be focused on medical practice, medical education or medical care.
  11. The journal has the right to refuse to post any advertising message for any reason. The decision on the publication of advertising can be made only with the participation of the editor and the editorial board of the journal.

 

Position on animal rights

When conducting experimental studies on animals, authors must indicate compliance with institutional and national standards for use of laboratory animals (CONSENSUS AUTHOR GUIDELINES FOR ANIMAL USE: http://www.veteditors.org/consensus-author-guidelines-on-animal-ethics-and-welfare-for-editors)

 

The situation of human rights

When presenting the results of human experimental studies, the authors should indicate whether the procedures were in accordance with the ethical standards set out in the Helsinki declaration. If the study was conducted without taking into account the principles of the Declaration, the authors should justify the chosen approach to the study and ensure that the ethical Committee of the organization in which the study was conducted approved the chosen approach.

 

Informed Consent

In its work, the journal «The Russian Archives of Internal Medicine» relies on the provisions of the World Medical Association's Helsinki Declaration (WMA Declaration of Helsinki - The Ethnic Principles for Medical Research) and seeks to ensure that ethical standards and rules for data collection for research conducted with people. Before starting the study, the scientist should familiarize himself with the provisions on the informed consent of the Helsinki Declaration and conduct the research in strict accordance with the principles set forth below (the provisions of the Helsinki Declaration 25-32 are given):

25. Participation by individuals capable of giving informed consent as subjects in medical research must be voluntary. Although it may be appropriate to consult family members or community leaders, no individual capable of giving informed consent may be enrolled in a research study unless he or she freely agrees.

26. In medical research involving human subjects capable of giving informed consent, each potential subject must be adequately informed of the aims, methods, sources of funding, any possible conflicts of interest, institutional affiliations of the researcher, the anticipated benefits and potential risks of the study and the discomfort it may entail, post-study provisions and any other relevant aspects of the study. The potential subject must be informed of the right to refuse to participate in the study or to withdraw consent to participate at any time without reprisal. Special attention should be given to the specific information needs of individual potential subjects as well as to the methods used to deliver the information.

After ensuring that the potential subject has understood the information, the physician or another appropriately qualified individual must then seek the potential subject’s freely-given informed consent, preferably in writing. If the consent cannot be expressed in writing, the non-written consent must be formally documented and witnessed.

All medical research subjects should be given the option of being informed about the general outcome and results of the study.

27. When seeking informed consent for participation in a research study the physician must be particularly cautious if the potential subject is in a dependent relationship with the physician or may consent under duress. In such situations the informed consent must be sought by an appropriately qualified individual who is completely independent of this relationship.

28. For a potential research subject who is incapable of giving informed consent, the physician must seek informed consent from the legally authorised representative. These individuals must not be included in a research study that has no likelihood of benefit for them unless it is intended to promote the health of the group represented by the potential subject, the research cannot instead be performed with persons capable of providing informed consent, and the research entails only minimal risk and minimal burden.

29. When a potential research subject who is deemed incapable of giving informed consent is able to give assent to decisions about participation in research, the physician must seek that assent in addition to the consent of the legally authorised representative. The potential subject’s dissent should be respected.

30. Research involving subjects who are physically or mentally incapable of giving consent, for example, unconscious patients, may be done only if the physical or mental condition that prevents giving informed consent is a necessary characteristic of the research  group. In such circumstances the physician must seek informed consent from the legally authorised representative. If no such representative is available and if the research cannot be delayed, the study may proceed without informed consent provided that the specific reasons for involving subjects with a condition that renders them unable to give informed consent have been stated in the research protocol and the study has been approved by a research ethics committee. Consent to remain in the research must be obtained as soon as possible from the subject or a legally authorised representative.

31. The physician must fully inform the patient which aspects of their care are related to the research. The refusal of a patient to participate in a study or the patient’s decision to withdraw from the study must never adversely affect the patient-physician relationship.

32. For medical research using identifiable human material or data, such as research on material or data contained in biobanks or similar repositories, physicians must seek informed consent for its collection, storage and/or reuse. There may be exceptional situations where consent would be impossible or impracticable to obtain for such research. In such situations the research may be done only after consideration and approval of a research ethics committee.