Peer-Review
Updated: August 10, 2024.
Peer-review of the scientific manuscript in «Science & Healthcare» involves several steps:
1. Initial review of the manuscript to comply with the standards of the Journal
The scientific editor provides an initial review of the manuscript within 5-10 days after its submission. The initial evaluation of the manuscript assesses the compliance with the scope of the journal and the rules for the preparation of manuscripts based on the information presented in the section “Authors Guidelines” at the website the “Science & Healthcare” journal.
Manuscripts that are within the scope and meet the standards of the Journal (follow the Guidelines for Authors) will be sent to reviewers.
If the manuscript does not meet the standards of the Journal or is out of its scope, it is rejected.
Resubmission of the manuscript is possible after bringing it into compliance with the requirements of the journal.
All manuscripts are checked for plagiarism using the anti-plagiarism program “AntiPlagiat”. When scientific misconduct is alleged, the editor should follow procedures detailed by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).
Manuscripts that align with the journal's focus, are formatted according to the "Guidelines for Authors" and do not contain improper borrowing are accepted for review and sent for peer evaluation.
2. Peer Review
A double-blind peer review method is mandatory for processing all submitted scientific manuscripts in Science & Healthcare journal. This means that neither the reviewer is aware of the authorship of the manuscript, nor does the author maintain any contact with the reviewer. Each manuscript is peer-reviewed by 2 reviewers. In case of disagreement bet ween the first reviewers, an additional 3rd reviewer is assigned.
We aim to limit the review process from 3 to 4 weeks, though in some cases the schedule may be adjusted at the reviewer’s request for extra 2 weeks. Reviewing is carried out by invited reviewers who are leading specialists in the relevant field, as well as members of the editorial board and editorial council. The decision on the selection of a particular reviewer for the article review is made by the deputy editor-in-chief. In choosing a reviewer, the editorial team takes potential conflicts of interest into account: a reviewer cannot be the scientific supervisor, subordinate, or employer of the author, a co-author of previous articles, or a relative of the manuscript's author.
Reviewing is voluntary and free of charge. Each reviewer has the right to refuse to do a review if there is any conflict of interest affecting the perception and interpretation of the manuscript.
Reviewers are required to follow to the established editorial policy of the journal "Science & Health" regarding ethical standards in manuscript review, based on international guidelines (The Committeeon Publication Ethics (COPE), the Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ), the World Association of Medical Editors (WAME).
- The reviewer evaluates the manuscript, describes constructive comments, and provides detailed feedback on the research to help the authors improve their work. Examination of the work should include an assessment of the originality and significance of the study; study design; research methodologies, including analytical and statistical methods; presentation of the results; the validity of conclusions. In addition, it is necessary to identify possible distortions and errors and evaluate the overall quality of the manuscript. The reviewer provides the editor with recommendations regarding the suitability of publishing the manuscript in the journal.
- In the event of a conflict of interest, the reviewer has the right to decline to review the submitted work.
- The Reviewer must guarantee the confidentiality of information contained in the manuscript, and should not use this information in any way.
- Double-blind peer review implies that the reviewer receives the manuscript without the personal data of the authors, and the authors receive the opinion of the Reviewer without the personal data of the Reviewer.
The review is composed in text form, which includes:
- subject area compliance
- relevance and scientific novelty
- practical relevance
- ethics
- validity of design, research methods, structure and content
- quality of article design: style, terminology and its conformity to the accepted in the field of knowledge
Recommendations for the manuscript's future:
- to accept the paper in its present state
- to accept after a minor revision
- major revision and subsequent review
- to reject the manuscript
To accept the paper in its present state
The manuscript is ready for publication in its current submission, substantiated, ethical, significant for the scientific community, the writing style is clear and concise.
To accept after a minor revision
There are uncritical comments on the manuscript that need to be corrected.
This may be a bad style, lack of clarity of presentation, insufficiently developed structure, errors in links, duplication of information in figures and tables and the text of the manuscript. After changes and reassessment, the manuscript can be accepted for publication.
Major revision and subsequent review
The article has serious flaws and errors that affect the reliability of the results: problems with ethics, research design, gaps in the description of research methods, poorly presented results or their misinterpretation, an insufficiently complete description of the limitations of the study, contradictory (or disproved by the author’s statements) conclusions, lack of references to important studies, fuzzy tables and figures requiring serious revision.
After a subsequent review, the manuscript can be accepted, rejected or sent for additional review.
To reject the manuscript
The work does not meet the scope and aims of the journal, has one or more irreparable defects or serious ethical problems: consent for publication was not obtained in cases where it is necessary, the research methods are unethical, the methodology is discredited or erroneous (for example, a process that seriously affects results).
The reviewer should give detailed comments, as they can help the author significantly improve the work.
3. Revisions, final submission and acceptance
In cases where the review has requested changes to the manuscript, authors will be invited to prepare a revision. The decision letter from the editorial office will be sent to the authors. The revision should also be accompanied by a point-by-point response to referees explaining how the manuscript has been changed. The deadline for submission of a revised manuscript is 2 weeks.
We politely request that the editor is notified in writing should the author decide to refuse from publishing the manuscript. In case the author fails to do so within 4 weeks since receiving a copy of the initial review, the editorial board takes the manuscript off the register of the journal and notifies the author accordingly.
If the author and reviewers have encountered insoluble contradictions regarding the manuscript, the editorial board has the right to send the manuscript for additional review. The duration of the additional review is 2 weeks. In conflict situations, a decision is made at a meeting of the editorial board.
Kindly note that a positive review does not guarantee acceptance, as the final decision in all cases is made by the Editorial board. The decision to refuse to publish the manuscript is made at a meeting of the Editorial Board under the recommendations of reviewers. A manuscript rejected by the editorial board is not accepted for reconsideration. A refusal to publish is sent to the author by e-mail.
Upon the decision to accept the manuscript for publishing, the editorial office notifies the authors of the scheduled date of publication and the anticipated issue number of the journal.
RETRACTION AND CORRECTION POLICY
According to the main international guidelines, the withdrawal of the text from the publication (retraction) is possible to correct the published information and notify readers that the publication contains serious flaws or erroneous data that cannot be trusted.
Also, to warn readers about cases of duplicate publications (when authors present the same data in multiple publications), plagiarism, and the concealment of conflicts of interest that would have unduly influenced interpretations or recommendations.
Grounds for Retracting a Published Article:
- detection of incorrect borrowings (plagiarism) in a publication;
- duplication of an article in multiple journals;
- detection of falsifications or fabrications in the work (e.g., manipulation of experimental data);
- detection of serious errors in the work (e.g., incorrect interpretation of results), which calls into question its scientific value;
- incorrect authorship composition (absence of someone who deserves to be an author; inclusion of individuals who do not meet authorship criteria);
- concealed conflict of interest (and other violations of publication ethics);
- republishing an article without the author's consent.
If the author/group of authors find it necessary to withdraw the article, they contact the editorial office, explaining the reason for their decision. If the editorial board agrees to retraction, then it independently retracts the text. If the editorial board agrees to the retraction, they will proceed with retracting the text themselves. Alternatively, the editorial board may inform the authors of this decision, providing the reason for the retraction and the date of retraction. The article and the description of the article remain on the journal's website as part of the corresponding issue of the journal, but the inscription WITHDRAWAL/RETRACTED and the retraction date are applied to the electronic version of the text, the same mark is placed with the article in the table of contents of the issue.