As per fixed procedures all the scientific papers which are submitted to the Editorial Board of "Health Risk Analysis" theoretical and practical edition are to be reviewed twice. The papers can also be submitted together with a review written by an expert in the field which a paper belongs to but the second expert assessment procedure remains obligatory. It is organized by the Editorial Board as follows:
- The Editorial Board executive secretary determines whether a paper corresponds to the edition profile, and verifies its compliance with requirements to layout; assesses whether a submitted review is comprehensive enough; he then submits a paper to be first considered by Deputy to Chief Editor. Deputy to Chief Editor examines the scientific context of a paper. Then, in case of necessity, a paper is submitted for reviewing to a member of the Editorial Council or to an independent reviewer, an expert, a Doctor of Sciences, or a Candidate of Sciences who specializes in the scientific field closest to the subject of a paper and is the most competent expert on the subject matter. All the reviewers are to be recognized experts in the spheres which reviewed papers belong to, and over the last 3 years they have published papers on the same subject matters as a reviewed one. The Editorial Board reserve to themselves the right to choose a reviewer.
- Having granted his or her consent to review a paper, a reviewer receives the materials for his or her assessment and he or she then acts in conformity with the recommendations listed below.
- Terms of reviewing in each separate case are determined by the Editorial Board executive secretary allowing for achieving the promptest publication of a paper.
- A review submitted together with a paper (if any) and a review by a member of the Editorial Council or an independents reviewer should cover the following points:
a) whether a paper content corresponds to the theme stated in its heading;
b) the extent to which a paper corresponds to contemporary achievements in theory and practice of health care and medical sciences;
c) whether a paper is accessible to readers in terms of language, style, materials layout, convenient and understandable visualization of tables, diagrams, figures and formulas;
d) whether a paper publishing is expedient allowing for novelty of the materials contained in it;
e) the extent to which presentation of the materials corresponds to contemporary requirements in the sphere of health care and medical sciences methodology, and the extent to which research conclusions are applicable in domestic and foreign practices;
f) whether there are any drawbacks which should be corrected, or any additions which should be made by authors;
g) whether a paper after all the drawbacks mentioned by a reviewer are eliminated is recommended or not recommended for publishing in the Edition.
- All the reviews, both submitted by authors and completed on the instructions of the Editorial Council executive secretary are to be certified according to procedures fixed in an establishment where a reviewer works.
- Reviewing is performed confidentially; an author and a reviewer are not given each other's names. An author is given an opportunity to read all remarks made by a reviewer. The Editorial Board also undertakes to submit copies of reviews to the RF Ministry of Education should a relevant enquiry be received.
- Should a review contain any recommendations to correct and to make any amendments or alterations in a paper, the Editorial Board executive secretary sends remarks made by a reviewer to an author together with a proposal to take them into account when preparing another version of a paper or to refute them (fully or partially) with convincing arguments. A paper updated (or revised) by an author is submitted to another reviewing.
- A paper which has not been recommended for publishing by a reviewer cannot be submitted for further consideration. A negative decision is sent to an author by e-mail, fax, or mail.
- A positive review is not to be considered sufficient ground for publishing a paper. A final decision on publishing expediency is to be made by the Editorial Board of "Health Risk Analysis" theoretical and practical edition.
- After a positive decision on publishing a paper has been taken by the Editorial Board, an author is informed about it and the date of publishing via e-mail.
- Original copies of reviews are to be kept in the Editorial Board archive for 5 years.
The Board urge reviewers who take part in assessing papers submitted for publishing in our journal to follow the rules stated in COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers issued by COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers or Collection of Russian translations of COPE recommendations on scientific publications ethics, as well as List of requirements and conditions for publishing papers and other materials.