Национальный центр общественного здравоохранения



Scientific articles Peer Review Process


Editorial office of «Actual issues of healthy lifestyle development, disease prevention and health promotion» Journal, NCPHLD MHSD RK

All articles received by the Editorial board are peer reviewed

1. All research papers received by the editors of the journal «Actual issues of healthy lifestyle development, disease prevention and health promotion» are registered and reviewed by the responsible secretary to determine suitability with requirements and profile of the Journal. Responsible Secretary shall send the article on the peer review to an expert with a deep professional knowledge and experience, a professor, doctor or candidate of sciences as a rule.

2. Reviewers are notified that sent the manuscripts are the private property of the authors and not are the subject to disclosure. Reviewers are not allowed to make copies of articles for their needs. Reviewing is confidential procedure. Breach of confidentiality is only possible in the case of reviewer’s application of unreliability or falsification of materials contained in the article. Experts employed at the same institution where the work was performed could not be involved in peer reviewing.

3. The originals are kept in the Editorial Board.

4. If the article review points the need of correction, the article is sent to the author for revision. In this case, the date of receipt to the Editor means the modified article return date.

5. Article sent to the authors for revision should be returned in revised form within a month. Letter from the authors, containing the answers to all  comments and explain all changes made in the article shall be attached to the revised manuscript.

6. If an article on the recommendation of the reviewer has undergone substantial processing by the author, it is sent for re-reviewing to the same referee who made critical remarks.

7. The editors reserve the right to reject entries from the inability or unwillingness to accommodate the wishes of the author’s edition.

8. In the event of disagreement with the opinion of the reviewer the author has the right to provide a reasoned response to the journal. The article can be directed to re-review for approval or the editorial board.

9. The decision whether the publication is taken after reviewing the chief editor, and if necessary — by the Editorial Board as a whole.


The rules applicable to the Review of the scientific article

Review task — to promote a strict selection of authors’ manuscripts for publication and offer specific recommendations for improvement. The review shall objectively evaluate scientific articles and contain a comprehensive analysis of its scientific and methodological advantages and disadvantages. The recommended amount of reviews — up to 15 thousand. Characters (including spaces) to about 1.5 pages of A4 size 12 pins.

Requirements for the content review of the scientific article

The reviewer should:

1. To determine compliance with the material presented in the article, the profile of the magazine.

2. To assess the relevance of the content of the article: Does the level of the material contained in it modern achievements of science and technology.

3. To assess the significance of the results of research (scientific, practical).

4. Indicate whether incorporated requirements for registration of the material of the article: Volume of articles, abstracts presence in Russian and English languages, the availability of the bibliography and references to it in the text, contact information about the authors and others.

5. Writing a qualitative and / or quantitative evaluation of the material given in the article:

— In fact;

— Ilustration.

6. Evaluate the completeness and accuracy of the data presented.

7. Evaluate the accuracy and used (or input) the definitions and wording.

8. Assess the literary style of presentation.

9. Post-founded conclusions about the article as a whole, the comments, if necessary — it could be improved.

The complex of these issues is general in nature. Each item requires an individual approach to the selection criteria for its evaluation.

The final part of the review on the analysis of the article should be given a clear recommendation for its publication in the present form, or the need for its revision or processing (with constructive comments) and may be inappropriate and of its publication in this journal.