- » Aim and Scope
- » Section Policies
- » Peer Review Process
- » Publication Frequency
- » Open Access Policy
- » Archiving
- » Peer-Review
- » Indexation
- » Publishing Ethics
- » Founder
- » Article processing charge
- » Disclosure and Conflict of Interest
- » Plagiarism detection
- » Preprint and postprint Policy
- » Policy on revocation or correction of articles
- » Personal data processing policy
- » Policy on Generative Artificial Intelligence
- » Authorship Policy and Contribution Statement
- » Complaints and Appeals Policy
- » Conflict of Interest Policy
- » Policy on Data Sharing and Reproducibility
- » Policy on Biomedical Ethical Oversight
- » Policy for Post-Publication Discussions and Corrections
Aim and Scope
The most important tasks of the journal are: propaganda of scientific and practical achievements, increase of scientific and practical qualification of various specialties. The scientific concept of the publication involves the publication of modern achievements, the results of scientific research, the results of national and international clinical, pharmacoepidemiological, pharmacoeconomic and non-interventional studies. Both domestic and foreign scientists are invited to publish in the journal. The journal publishes original articles, the results of the studies on a wide range of issues. The editorial board pays great attention to the issues of training specialists in the specialty of clinical pharmacology.
Section Policies
Open Submissions
Peer ReviewedPeer Review Process
The main purpose of the review is to ensure high quality of published materials. First of all, to validate the decision of a manuscript acceptance for publication (with minimal or substantial corrections) or the need for publication rejection.
To increase the objectivity the principle of a "double-blind peer review" is used: the authors do not know who the reviewer is and the reviewer does not know who the authors are, including their place of work or the institution(s) where the manuscript comes from.
Editorial Board considers important educational role of reviewing and welcomes constructive criticism of the reviewer aimed to help the authors to improve the quality of submitted scientific material.
Editorial Board recommends the reviewer when analyzing the manuscripts to adhere to the international rules of publication of biomedical research (Uniform Requirements for Manuscripts Submitted to Biomedical Journals) and standards of publication of randomized clinical trials (CONSORT Statement).
The reviewer is obliged to keep confidentiality when working with the submitted manuscript.
Manuscripts should be sent in electronic form to the Editorial office E-mail: eva88@list.ru. Contact information of the Editorial office: phone +7 (910) 449-22-73. In a covering letter authors should ensure that the manuscripts have not been submitted to other journals, placed on the Internet, and previously published. The manuscript comes to the Executive Editor of the Journal, who checks it for the compliance with the Requirements for Submission and Publication. Attention is drawn to the availability of author’s contact details, completeness of author’s information, summary in Russian, and potential conflicts of interest disclosure. Manuscripts sent with violation of the Requirements of Submission will not be accepted for consideration by the Journal Editors.
Submitted manuscript is registered in an electronic database - the date of receipt and a serial number are recorded. The file is assigned a name, including: (1) the abbreviated name of the Journal, (2) the year of receiving, (3) a serial number, (4) the name of the first author, (5) keyword of the manuscript title (example: KKP_2020_Belousov_EchoCG). The date of receipt is entered directly on the first page of authorial manuscript.
Then the Executive Editor presents the manuscript to the Editor-in-Chief (Deputy Editor) to define the correspondence of the manuscript to the Journal profile and its subject matter. Editor-in-Chief (Deputy Editor) nominates external reviewer, an expert in this scientific area and the Executive Editor arranges with the nominated reviewer review performance.
Executive Editor provides the "blindness" of the manuscript: (1) removes authors' names and names of institutions where they work from the cover page, (2) deletes the name of the first author from the file name, (3) deletes data from the file property, enabling to identity the authors,. Thus, the reviewer will not be able to learn whose manuscript and from which institution he reviews. Only in this way the manuscript is sent to the reviewer by email. Along with the manuscript the following documents are sent to the reviewer: (1) policy letter "Information for reviewers", (2) special form to fill in "Reviewer’s report on the manuscript submitted for publication", (3) an example of such completed form, (4) the form for the potential conflicts of interest disclosure. These documents can also be found on the Journal’s website in the section "For reviewers" (links for uploading are below).
The reviewer’s name and manuscript sent date for review are recorded by the Executive Editor in the already mentioned electronic database.
A review is formalized in a free style with the obligatory conclusion about a significance of criticisms and potential for the manuscript publishing. In most cases a manuscript is reviewed by one expert. If necessary (for example, the interdisciplinary subject of the manuscript), the manuscript is sent for the second review. After receiving the reviews Editor-in-Chief (Deputy Editor) re-examines the manuscript and decides on publication. The authors are always informed about the Editor-in-Chief’s (Deputy Editor) decision, reviewer comments and (if necessary) they are requested to send a corrected version of the manuscript. To achieve maximum objectivity reviewer comments are sent to authors anonymously.
Reviews are stored in the Journal Editorial office and in the Publishing house at least 5 years and made available upon request to the Ministry of Education and Science of the Russian Federation.
After receiving the revised version of the manuscript, it is checked on plagiarism and undergoes scientific, literary and technical editing, proofreading. In case of the author’s incomplete consideration of reviewer’s comments, the Editorial Board at its own discretion conducts an independent scientific editing, revises the manuscript, or can refuse the publication. Scientific editing, reduction and correction of the manuscript, changing the design of graphics, drawings and tables are intended to bring the material into conformity with the standards of the Journal. In this case the meaning of the provided information can not be changed.
In case of refusal to publish the manuscript the reasoned response is sent obligatory to the authors, along with the comments from the reviewers.
Annual report on the work of the Editorial Board of "Kachestvennaya klinicheskaya praktika", which includes a list of reviewers is published in the first issue (number) of the year following the reporting one.
Editor-in-Chief of the Journal "Kachestvennaya klinicheskaya praktika"
Professor Zyryanov S.K.
Publication Frequency
4 раза в год
Open Access Policy
"Kachestvennaya klinicheskaya praktika" is an open access journal. All articles are made freely available to readers immediatly upon publication.
Our open access policy is in accordance with the Budapest Open Access Initiative (BOAI) definition - it means that articles have free availability on the public internet, permitting any users to read, download, copy, distribute, print, search, or link to the full texts of these articles, crawl them for indexing, pass them as data to software, or use them for any other lawful purpose, without financial, legal, or technical barriers other than those inseparable from gaining access to the internet itself.
For more information please read BOAI statement.
Peer-Review
A bilateral anonymous ("blind") peer review method is mandatory for processing of all scientific manuscripts submitted to the editorial stuff of "Kachestvennaya klinicheskaya praktika". This implies that neither the reviewer is aware of the authorship of the manuscript, nor the author maintains any contact with the reviewer.
- Members of the editorial board and leading Russian experts in corresponding areas of life sciences, invited as independent readers, perform peer reviews. Editor-in-chief, deputy editor-in-chief or science editor choose readers for peer review. We aim to limit the review process to 8 weeks, though in some cases the schedule may be adjusted at the reviewer’s request.
- Reviewer has an option to abnegate the assessment should any conflict of interests arise that may affect perception or interpretation of the manuscript. Upon the scrutiny, the reviewer is expected to present the editorial board with one of the following recommendations:
- to accept the paper in its present state;
- to invited the author to revise their manuscript to address specific concerns before final decision is reached;
- that final decision be reached following further reviewing by another specialist;
- to reject the manuscript outright. - If the reviewer has recommended any refinements, the editorial staff would suggest the author either to implement the corrections, or to dispute them reasonably. Authors are kindly required to limit their revision to 2 months and resubmit the adapted manuscript within this period for final evaluation.
- We politely request that the editor to be notified verbally or in writing should the author decide to refuse from publishing the manuscript. In case the author fails to do so within 3 months since receiving a copy of the initial review, the editorial board takes the manuscript off the register and notifies the author accordingly.
- If author and reviewers meet insoluble contradictions regarding revision of the manuscript, the editor-in-chief resolves the conflict by his own authority.
- The editorial board reaches final decision to reject a manuscript on the hearing according to reviewers’ recommendations, and duly notifies the authors of their decision via e-mail. The board does not accept previously rejected manuscripts for re-evaluation.
- Upon the decision to accept the manuscript for publishing, the editorial staff notifies the authors of the scheduled date of publication.
- Kindly note that positive review does not guarantee the acceptance, as final decision in all cases lies with the editorial board. By his authority, editor-in-chief rules final solution of every conflict.
- Original reviews of submitted manuscripts remain deposited for 5 years.
Indexation
Articles in "Kachestvennaya klinicheskaya praktika" 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.
- CyberLeninka is a scientific electronic library built on the paradigm of open science (Open Science), the main tasks of which are the popularization of science and scientific activity, public quality control of scientific publications, the development of interdisciplinary research, the modern institute of scientific review, increasing the citation of Russian science and building.
Publishing Ethics
The Publication Ethics and Publication Malpractice Statement of the journal “Kachestvennaya klinicheskaya praktika” are based on the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) Code of Conduct guidelines available at www.publicationethics.org and requirements for peer-reviewed medical journals (http://health.elsevier.ru/attachments/editor/file/ethical_code_final.pdf), elaborated by the Elsevier Publishing House (in accordance with international ethical rules of scientific publications)
1. Introduction
1.1. The publication in a peer reviewed learned journal, serves many purposes outside of simple communication. It is a building block in the development of a coherent and respected network of knowledge. For all these reasons and more it is important to lay down standards of expected ethical behaviour by all parties involved in the act of publishing: the author, the journal editor, the peer reviewer, the publisher and the society for society-owned or sponsored journal: "Kachestvennaya klinicheskaya praktika".
1.2. Publisher has a supporting, investing and nurturing role in the scholarly communication process but is also ultimately responsible for ensuring that best practice is followed in its publications.
1.3. Publisher takes its duties of guardianship over the scholarly record extremely seriously. Our journal programs record «the minutes of science» and we recognize our responsibilities as the keeper of those «minutes» in all our policies not least the ethical guidelines that we have here adopted.
2. Duties of Editors
2.1. Publication decision – The Editor of the journal "Kachestvennaya klinicheskaya praktika" is solely and independently responsible for deciding which of the articles submitted to the journal should be published, often working on conjunction with the relevant society (for society-owned or sponsored journals). The validation of the work in question and its importance to researchers and readers must always underwrite such decisions. The Editor may be guided by the policies of the "Kachestvennaya klinicheskaya praktika" journal’s editorial board and constrained by such legal requirements as shall then be in force regarding libel, copyright infringement and plagiarism. The editor may confer with other editors or reviewers (or society officers) in making this decision.
2.2. Fair play – An editor should evaluate manuscripts for their intellectual content without regard to race, gender, sexual orientation, religious belief, ethnic origin, citizenship, or political philosophy of the authors.
2.3. Confidentiality – The editor and any editorial staff of "Kachestvennaya klinicheskaya praktika" must not disclose any information about a submitted manuscript to anyone other than the corresponding author, reviewers, potential reviewers, other editorial advisers, and the publisher, as appropriate.
2.4. Disclosure and Conflicts of interest
2.4.1. Unpublished materials disclosed in a submitted manuscript must not be used in an editor’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.
2.4.2. Editors should recuse themselves (i.e. should ask a co-editor, associate editor or other member of the editorial board instead to review and consider) from considering manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies, or (possibly) institutions connected to the papers.
2.5. Vigilance over published record – An editor presented with convincing evidence that the substance or conclusions of a published paper are erroneous should coordinate with the publisher (and/or society) to promote the prompt publication of a correction, retraction, expression of concern, or other note, as may be relevant.
2.6.Involvement and cooperation in investigations – An editor should take reasonably responsive measures when ethical complaints have been presented concerning a submitted manuscript or published paper, in conjunction with the publisher (or society). Such measures will generally include contacting the author of the manuscript or paper and giving due consideration of the respective complaint or claims made, but may also include further communications to the relevant institutions and research bodies.
3. Duties of Reviewers
3.1. Contribution to Editorial Decisions – Peer review assists the editor in making editorial decisions and through the editorial communications with the author may also assist the author in improving the paper. Peer review is an essential component of formal scholarly communication, and lies at the heart of the scientific method. Publisher shares the view of many that all scholars who wish to contribute to publications have an obligation to do a fair share of reviewing.
3.2. Promptness – Any selected referee who feels unqualified to review the research reported in a manuscript or knows that its prompt review will be impossible should notify the editor of "Kachestvennaya klinicheskaya praktika" and excuse himself from the review process.
3.3. Confidentiality – Any manuscripts received for review must be treated as confidential documents. They must not be shown to or discussed with others except as authorised by the editor.
3.4. Standard and objectivity – Reviews should be conducted objectively. Personal criticism of the author is inappropriate. Referees should express their views clearly with supporting arguments.
3.5. Acknowledgement of Sources – Reviewers should identify relevant published work that has not been cited by the authors. Any statement that an observation, derivation, or argument had been previously reported should be accompanied by the relevant citation. A reviewer should also call to the editor’s attention any substantial similarity or overlap between the manuscript under consideration and any other published paper of which they have personal knowledge.
3.6. Disclosure and Conflict of Interest
3.6.1. 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.
3.6.2. 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.
4. Duties of Authors
4.1. Reporting standards
4.1.1. Authors of reports of original research should present an accurate account of the work performed as well as an objective discussion of its significance. Underlying data should be represented accurately in the paper. A paper should contain sufficient detail and references to permit others to replicate the work. Fraudulent or knowingly inaccurate statements constitute unethical behaviour and are unacceptable.
4.1.2. Review and professional publication articles should also be accurate and objective, and editorial 'opinion’ works should be clearly identified as such.
4.2. Data Access and Retention – Authors may be asked to provide the raw data in connection with a paper for editorial review, and should be prepared to provide public access to such data (consistent with the ALPSP-STM Statement on Data and Databases), if practicable, and should in any event be prepared to retain such data for a reasonable time after publication.
4.3. Originality and Plagiarism
4.3.1. The authors should ensure that they have written entirely original works, and if the authors have used the work and/or words of others, this has been appropriately cited or quoted.
4.3.2. Plagiarism takes many forms, from ‘passing off’ another’s paper as the author’s own paper, to copying or paraphrasing substantial parts of another’s paper (without attribution), to claiming results from research conducted by others. Plagiarism in all its forms constitutes unethical publishing behaviour and is unacceptable.
4.4. Multiple, Redundant or Concurrent Publication
4.4.1. An author should not in general publish manuscripts describing essentially the same research in more than one journal of primary publication. Submitting the same manuscript to more than one journal concurrently constitutes unethical publishing behaviour and is unacceptable.
4.4.2. In general, an author should not submit for consideration in another journal a previously published paper.
4.4.3. Publication of some kinds of articles (eg, clinical guidelines, translations) in more than one journal is sometimes justifiable, provided certain conditions are met. The authors and editors of the journals concerned must agree to the secondary publication, which must reflect the same data and interpretation of the primary document. The primary reference must be cited in the secondary publication. Further detail on acceptable forms of secondary publication can be found at www.icmje.org.
4.5. Acknowledgement of Sources – Proper acknowledgment of the work of others must always be given. Authors should cite publications that have been influential in determining the nature of the reported work. Information obtained privately, as in conversation, correspondence, or discussion with third parties, must not be used or reported without explicit, written permission from the source. Information obtained in the course of confidential services, such as refereeing manuscripts or grant applications, must not be used without the explicit written permission of the author of the work involved in these services.
4.6. Authorship of the Paper
4.6.1. Authorship should be limited to those who have made a significant contribution to the conception, design, execution, or interpretation of the reported study. All those who have made significant contributions should be listed as co-authors. Where there are others who have participated in certain substantive aspects of the research project, they should be acknowledged or listed as contributors.
4.6.2. The corresponding author should ensure that all appropriate co-authors and no inappropriate co-authors are included on the paper, and that all co-authors have seen and approved the final version of the paper and have agreed to its submission for publication.
4.7. Hazards and Human or Animal Subjects
4.7.1. If the work involves chemicals, procedures or equipment that have any unusual hazards inherent in their use, the author must clearly identify these in the manuscript.
4.7.2. If the work involves the use of animal or human subjects, the author should ensure that the manuscript contains a statement that all procedures were performed in compliance with relevant laws and institutional guidelines and that the appropriate institutional committee(s) have approved them. Authors should include a statement in the manuscript that informed consent was obtained for experimentation with human subjects. The privacy rights of human subjects must always be observed.
4.8. Disclosure and Conflicts of Interest
4.8.1. All authors should disclose in their manuscript any financial or other substantive conflict of interest that might be construed to influence the results or interpretation of their manuscript. All sources of financial support for the project should be disclosed.
4.8.2. Examples of potential conflicts of interest which should be disclosed include employment, consultancies, stock ownership, honoraria, paid expert testimony, patent applications/registrations, and grants or other funding. Potential conflicts of interest should be disclosed at the earliest possible stage.
4.9. Fundamental errors in published works – When an author discovers a significant error or inaccuracy in a published work, it is the author’s obligation to promptly notify the editor of "Kachestvennaya klinicheskaya praktika" journal and cooperate with Publisher to retract or correct the paper, If the editor or the publisher learn from a third party that a published work contains a significant error, it is the obligation of the author to promptly retract or correct the paper.
5. Duties of the Publisher (and if relevant, Society)
5.1. Publisher should adopt policies and procedures that support editors, reviewers and authors of "Kachestvennaya klinicheskaya praktika" in performing their ethical duties under these ethics guidelines. The publisher should ensure that the potential for advertising or reprint revenue has no impact or influence on editorial decisions.
5.2. The publisher should support "Kachestvennaya klinicheskaya praktika" journal editors in the review of complaints raised concerning ethical issues and help communications with other journals and/or publishers where this is useful to editors.
5.3. Publisher should develop codes of practice and inculcate industry standards for best practice on ethical matters, errors and retractions.
5.4. Publisher should provide specialized legal review and counsel if necessary.
Founder
Publishing House OKI
Article processing charge
Unfortunately, we are forced to take one step that will allow our publication to maintain its position in the world of publishing activity and the opportunity to present your scientific works in the journal "Kachestvennaya klinicheskaya praktika". Believe me, we have been putting this off for 24 years and trying to stay afloat, but today’s realities are pushing us to start charging an article processing charge (APC), which applies to articles submitted after September 1, 2025. The fee is charged for the procedure of bringing the submitted manuscript to the requirements of international rules for authors, which takes a lot of time and resources of the editorial board. Thanks to the APC, all articles published in the journal are openly available immediately after publication. This is made possible by the fee for article preparation, which covers the entire range of publishing services we provide. The APC structure includes scientific editing, technical editing and proofreading, article layout in PDF format, posting on the website and in indexed databases and depositories, and interaction with authors.
After the journal’s editorial board has reviewed and accepted the article for publication, the APC is paid by transferring funds to OKI Publishing House LLC’s bank account.
Scientific articles are published in the journal "Kachestvennaya klinicheskaya praktika" after payment of the APC in the amount of 15,000 rubles per article. The articles must not be of an advertising nature and must not contain trade names of drugs and medical devices, as well as information on grant support and other forms of financing.
To pay the APC by an individual, please follow the link: ARTICLE PROCESSING CHARGE in the journal "Kachestvennaya klinicheskaya praktika".
As a payment confirmation, you will receive a cash receipt from Yandex OFD to the email address you specified. This is an official document that can be submitted to your organization’s accounting department for expenses reimbursement. After payment, the editors will be notified by email eva88@list.ru indicating the title of the publication, and your article will be processed and printed. The indicated prices are for individuals only and are subject to bank card payment. Payment by legal entities is made under other conditions, and an Agreement has already been concluded between a legal entity and the publisher. If the authors intend to make payments from a legal entity’s account, please indicate this when submitting the manuscript. To pay from a legal entity, you must send a request and the organization’s details to the email address eva88@list.ru to receive an invoice for the editorial and publishing fee. After providing a copy of the payment document to the editors, the article will be sent for further processing and printing.
Payment for the publication of retracted articles is non-refundable.
Members of the journal’s editorial board are provided free publication of the article, regardless of citizenship, while the authors / members of the editorial board must guarantee the absence of a conflict of interest.
At the editorial board’s discretion, high-quality articles (research at the national or international level) may be eligible for free publication.
Requests for exceptions to the rules are considered, and an individual decision is made in each case. In particular, payment for article preparation may not be charged or may be charged on a preferential basis from the sole author of the article who is a graduate student of a state university of the Russian Federation. In this case, a cover letter must be attached –– Submission for publication from the research institution on the institution’s letterhead and signed by an official. Please submit your request for an exception to the rules at the time of submission of the manuscript. A decision is usually made within two working days. Requests submitted after the initial review or during the peer review process will not be considered.
__________________
Urgent publication ("Fast Track"). After the article has been reviewed and accepted for publication by the editors, it is published in the next issue of the journal. Includes the following services:
- Technical preparation of the manuscript for review.
- Expedited review.
- Pre-print publication of the article in the section "Online First".
- Publication as a priority in the next upcoming issue of the journal.
The cost of the service is 35,000 rubles per article.
Payment procedure: after the manuscript has successfully passed the review stage ("recommended for publication"), the editor sends the corresponding author a letter with the results. In parallel with the revision of the manuscript based on the comments of the reviewers and the editor, the author can notify the editors about the choice of the "Fast Track" publication service and make a payment. After receiving the payment, the version of the article approved by the editors and the corresponding author is posted in PDF format on the journal website in the "Online First" section before it is published in the printed issue, and is also posted in the next printed issue being formed. The service is considered to be rendered after the publication of the printed issue with the authors' article.
To pay for urgent publication ("Fast Track") by an individual, follow the link below: Payment for Fast track publication of an article in the journal "Kachestvennaya klinicheskaya praktika".
__________________
The offer is a public offer.
07.25.2025, Moscow
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 detection
"Kachestvennaya klinicheskaya praktika" use native russian-language plagiarism detection software Antiplagiat to screen the submissions. If plagiarism is identified, the COPE guidelines on plagiarism will be followed.
Preprint and postprint Policy
Prior to acceptance and publication in "Kachestvennaya klinicheskaya praktika", 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 "Kachestvennaya klinicheskaya praktika" 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)
Policy on revocation or correction of articles
Editors should consider retracting a publication if:
- They have clear evidence that the findings are unreliable, either as a result of major error (eg, miscalculation or experimental error), or as a result of fabrication (eg, of data) or falsification (eg, image manipulation)
- It constitutes plagiarism
- The findings have previously been published elsewhere without proper attribution to previous sources or disclosure to the editor, permission to republish, or justification (ie, cases of redundant publication)
- It contains material or data without authorisation for use
- Copyright has been infringed or there is some other serious legal issue (eg, libel, privacy)
- It reports unethical research
- It has been published solely on the basis of a compromised or manipulated peer review process
- The author(s) failed to disclose a major competing interest (a.k.a. conflict of interest) that, in the view of the editor, would have unduly affected interpretations of the work or recommendations by editors and peer reviewers.
Notices of retraction should:
- Be linked to the retracted article wherever possible (ie, in all online versions)
- Clearly identify the retracted article (eg, by including the title and authors in the retraction heading or citing the retracted article)
- Be clearly identified as a retraction (ie, distinct from other types of correction or comment)
- Be published promptly to minimise harmful effects
- Be freely available to all readers (ie, not behind access barriers or available only to subscribers)
- State who is retracting the article
- State the reason(s) for retraction
- Be objective, factual and avoid inflammatory language.
Retractions are not usually appropriate if:
- The authorship is disputed but there is no reason to doubt the validity of the findings
- The main findings of the work are still reliable and correction could sufficiently address errors or concerns
- An editor has inconclusive evidence to support retraction, or is awaiting additional information such as from an institutional investigation (for information about Expressions of Concern see https://publicationethics.org/expressions-of-concern-forum-discussion)
- Author conflicts of interest have been reported to the journal after publication, but in the editor’s view these are not likely to have influenced interpretations or recommendations or the conclusions of the article.
For more information: COPE (Version 2: November 2019)
https://publicationethics.org/files/retraction-guidelines.pdf
Personal data processing policy
Information about the authors (last name, first name, patronymic, name of the affiliated organization, e-mail address for readers to contact the author) provided by them for publication in the journal becomes available to an indefinite number of persons, to which the authors give written consent by the fact of the Offer concept when uploading the article to the online article acceptance system on the journal’s website. The publication of this information is carried out in the interests of the authors for the purpose of full and correct accounting of publications and their citation by the relevant bibliographic organizations and ensuring the possibility of contacts between authors and the scientific community.
Personal information provided by the authors to the journal in addition to the above information, including additional e-mail addresses and phone numbers, will be used exclusively for contacts with the authors during the preparation of the article for publication. The editorial board does not transfer this personal information to third parties who may use it for other purposes.
Policy on Generative Artificial Intelligence
Generative AI is a subset of machine learning algorithms that can generate text, images, or other media in response to prompts and questions. Generative AI uses generative models, such as large language models (LLMs), to statistically sample data based on the training dataset used to generate the models.
ChatGPT, generative AI chatbots, chatbots, and sometimes even AI (if the context suggests) are all terms used to refer to any generative AI program. Most commonly, this refers to chatbots.
These guidelines are intended to help the journal’s authors, editors, and reviewers understand how best to explain the use of AI in their work and address their need for access to manuscript review tools.
The journal editors will consider articles using AI tools in their preparation with some restrictions and general rules. The journal editors will consider the text created using artificial intelligence only if it is clearly described and justified. Our approach is based on transparency: if artificial intelligence technology is used, it should be clearly indicated. The journal editors will consider the appropriateness of the use of artificial intelligence described in the article. Our approach is in line with the requirements of the World Association of Medical Editors (WAME) and the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). This policy applies to all authors who submit articles and materials for publication in the journal. This principle applies to all types of articles, including original research, analytical articles, literature reviews, expert opinions, and discussions. It applies to all formats, including but is not limited to text, audio, video, audiovisual materials, annotations, databases, tables, data, diagrams, photographs, and other images or illustrative materials.
Limitations of Generative AI
Generative AI cannot say "no". If the program does not know the exact answer to your question, it will come up with an answer that looks plausible but has no connection with reality— the so-called "hallucinations".
Generative AI makes mistakes. It can admit errors but only if it is asked a specific question about an error. Is it possible to identify errors that you do not expect to find?
Generative AI does not compensate for the lack of user experience. The less experience the author has, the more likely he will not be able to find inaccuracies in the answers proposed by generative AI.
Therefore, the authors should not rely entirely on artificial intelligence. They should be aware that sharing any data with a chatbot carries risks associated with the violation of the confidentiality of the data received, both their own and others'.
If the author is unsure of the correctness of the generative AI chatbot's answers, but also if the author is confident in the recommendations of the AI: if the sources are real, accurate, and relevant, it may be better to read these original sources in order to analyze and understand them yourself, and select the articles that best meet the research objective. This is better than using the chatbot's interpretation. By default, it is assumed that authors take all measures to minimize the risks associated with using a generative AI chatbot: from anonymizing their data, obtaining permission to use the data for transmission, and checking the results. If these measures cannot be taken, authors may consider alternative ways to use generative AI chatbots or refuse to use them. AI chatbots cannot understand new information, generate ideas, or conduct in-depth analysis; thus, they limit the discussion of a research paper.
The structure of the generative AI-generated text can confuse readers into believing that it was written by humans. The generated text may contain errors, be superficial and shallow, or generate false references to journal publications and conclusions. More importantly, generative AI can sometimes lead to meaningless and false conclusions.
Even though the results appear well-formulated, they are superficial, and their overreliance on them can stifle creativity throughout her scientific work. AI tools are good at replicating accepted knowledge; however, they do not identify or create unique results. They cannot assess whether a unique result is false or innovative.
Thus, for analytical articles and expert opinion, generative AI is not suitable due to the lack of analytical skills that scientists are expected to have and the experience we bring to the table.
Ultimately, scientific articles are based on human-generated data and interpretations; scientific history requires creativity and know-how that are difficult to replicate using generative AI chatbots.
General Rules
No AI tool can “understand” a conflict of interest statement or have the legal right to sign one. Generative AI has no relationship with developers.
As authors submitting a manuscript must ensure that all those listed as authors meet the criteria for authorship, generative AI cannot be listed as authors. Therefore, generative AI cannot be referred to as an author or co-author of an article or any material generated by this program. The AI program cannot be listed as a contributing research or article. The responsibility for the use of all materials obtained as a result of interaction with the chatbot lies solely with the human.
The use of generative AI always carries a risk of privacy and infringement. The terms of publicly available generative AI tools often allow the reuse of input data in training, and any training may accidentally or intentionally appear as output from a generative AI tool without appropriate licensing notices or distribution terms.
When preparing a paper and planning a study, it is important to provide not only a description of the work that was done using generative AI, but also to attach the queries to the program and the answers to them. At different time points, generative AI may answer the same question differently; thus, it is important to preserve information that is important for future work. The extent and type of use of generative AI in journal publications should be described. This is in line with the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) recommendation that contributions to the article be acknowledged and that methods should provide detailed information about how the study was conducted and what results were obtained. Such openness is key to maintaining the credibility of scientific papers and ensuring that other researchers can accurately evaluate them and use them in their own research. When generative artificial intelligence is used to perform various tasks, such as: literature review, preparation of a research plan, data analysis and visualization, creation of graphs and tables, creation of an article structure, translation and editing of text, creation of the text of the article or individual sections, creation and editing of metadata for the article, assessment of the conducted research, preparation of a cover letter for the journal editor, and many others, full transparency in disclosing information about the use of generative artificial intelligence. This should be indicated in the Abstract section, and in the text of the article in the Methods section (if artificial intelligence was used to collect data, analyze them, create images), or describe what work was done in the Acknowledgments section (if artificial intelligence was used to work with the language of the manuscript); or describe what work was done in the Introduction.
All prompts used to generate new text, transform text, or transform text into tables or illustrations should be indicated. To enable scientific research, including reproduction and detection of falsifications, the article must be accompanied by full text with queries to the chatbot, the time and date of the query, the AI tool used and its version, and responses to them. The article must include a link to the application. The results obtained while working with the chatbot are summarized as follows.
A description of the work conducted using generative artificial intelligence must include:
- The name, version, and developer of the AI tools used (for example: ChatGPT, version from August 8, 2024, based on GPT-4, developed by OpenAI).
- Why this AI technology was used (the reason for its use).
- Indication of the sections and extent of the AI tool’s intervention (e.g., “In the Discussion section, approximately 20% of the text was initially generated by AI.”).
- A description of the type and purpose of the generated content included in the article (e.g., “The AI-generated text is intended to provide a structured Abstract as well as the main findings. This generated article content was later edited and refined by the authors to ensure consistency, accuracy, and relevance.”).
- A description of the prompts that were given to the program, along with the date/time (e.g., a link or screenshot of the chat).
The editor may request additional information and/or add information to the article’s content for internal use and/or publication.
Please note that no confidential material or personal data will be shared with the generative AI chatbot.
The editors of the journal prohibit the use of image generation and editing in articles. Exceptions are permitted only if obtaining images or correcting them using artificial intelligence is part of the research plan. In such cases, the authors must transparently describe the changes made. The editors may also require two versions of images: the original and modified using artificial intelligence.
All references in the list of references recommended by generative artificial intelligence must be carefully verified, and their text must be checked against the original publication.
The authors are responsible for the materials provided by the generative AI in their article (including the accuracy of the presentation and the absence of plagiarism), as well as for proper reference to all sources (including the original sources of materials created by generative artificial intelligence).
Generative artificial intelligence cannot be used to prepare a review. Fragments in the article text or the review may violate the confidentiality of the information received from the author. The reviewers should familiarize themselves with this journal policy on artificial intelligence. When reviewers suspect a violation of this policy, they should notify the scientific editor or editor-in-chief. If there is concern that the article or its fragments were created using generative artificial intelligence, this should be noted in the review as a factor affecting its accuracy and/or suitability for publication.
Journal editors cannot use generative artificial intelligence to work with an article. The reason is the same as for reviewers: a high risk of privacy breach when uploading both an article fragment and a review fragment to the chatbot.
Exceptions
Exceptions include programs for detecting incorrect borrowings (Antiplagiarism), software for working with a list of references (reference manager, such as Mendeley), and tools for checking grammar and spelling (such as Trinka).
The journal’s policy does not prevent the use of AI tools in planning or research.
Decision Making
The editors of the journal will consider whether the methods used and claimed by the generative AI are reasonable and consistent with the policies and practices of the journal.
Authorship Policy and Contribution Statement
The journal adheres to strict principles of research ethics and follows international standards (ICMJE, COPE) in determining authorship and contributor roles.
Authorship Criteria
To be listed as an author, one must have made a significant intellectual contribution to the study, including:
- Participation in research conception and design.
- Data collection, analysis, or interpretation.
- Drafting or critically revising the manuscript.
- Approval of the final version for publication.
The following do not qualify for authorship:
- Funding acquisition alone.
- Provision of materials or technical assistance only.
- General supervision without direct scientific input.
Authorship Order
- Author order should reflect relative contributions (first author = primary researcher, last author = senior supervisor).
- All authors must approve the submitted manuscript and take responsibility for its content.
- Changes to the author list after submission require written consent from all authors and editorial approval.
Author Responsibilities
Each author must:
- Disclose their specific contributions (using CRediT – Contributor Roles Taxonomy).
- Justify the inclusion of all co-authors and explain any omissions.
- Cooperate in resolving authorship disputes.
Special Cases
- Group authorship (consortia, collaborations) – must specify the group’s role and a contact person.
- Non-author contributors (e.g., statistical support) – should be acknowledged in the "Acknowledgements" section with their consent.
Disputes and Violations
- Authorship disputes will be investigated by the editorial board (drafts, correspondence, or lab records may be requested).
- Unjustified inclusion/exclusion of authors may lead to manuscript rejection or retraction.
- "Guest" or "gift" authorship (adding non-contributors) is prohibited and considered unethical.
Contribution Statement
Upon submission, authors must complete a "Contributor Roles" form (e.g., following CRediT standards), detailing:
- Conceptualization – Idea formulation; overarching research goals.
- Data Curation – Managing, annotating, and archiving research data.
- Formal Analysis – Applying statistical/mathematical/computational techniques.
- Funding Acquisition – Securing financial support for the project.
- Investigation – Conducting experiments/data collection.
- Methodology – Designing research methods and protocols.
- Project Administration – Overseeing research planning and execution.
- Resources – Providing materials, tools, or infrastructure.
- Software – Developing, programming, or testing software.
- Supervision – Leading and mentoring the research team.
- Validation – Verifying reproducibility and accuracy of results.
- Visualization – Preparing figures, diagrams, or presentations.
- Writing – Original Draft – Creating the first manuscript version.
- Writing – Review & Editing – Revising and refining the manuscript.
These roles help clarify individual contributions in multi-author papers, improving transparency in academic publishing. The journal reserves the right to request additional clarification on authorship at any stage of peer review.
This policy aligns with ICMJE (International Committee of Medical Journal Editors) and COPE (Committee on Publication Ethics) guidelines.
Complaints and Appeals Policy
The journal is committed to maintaining fairness, transparency, and objectivity in handling all complaints and appeals. This policy follows COPE (Committee on Publication Ethics) guidelines and international standards of scholarly publishing.
Types of Complaints Considered
The journal will review:
- Appeals of editorial decisions (rejection, revision requests)
- Allegations of publication ethics violations
- Concerns about peer review quality
- Conflicts between authors, reviewers, and editors
- Accusations of plagiarism or data fabrication
Submission Process
- Complaints must be sent to the Editor-in-Chief via the journal's official email: clinvest@mail.ru.
- The complaint should include:
- Manuscript ID (number) in the publication system, article title, article authors (if applicable)
- Detailed description of the issue
- Supporting evidence and materials
- Complainant's contact information
Review Procedure
Initial Assessment (3 business days):
- Acknowledgement of receipt
- Evaluation of complaint validity
Formal Investigation (15-30 business days):
- Formation of an independent review panel
- Collection of additional information
- Comprehensive case examination
Decision Making:
- Panel reaches a conclusion
- All parties receive notification
- Retraction may be initiated for serious violations
Possible Outcomes
- Reversal of publication decision
- Additional peer review
- Publication of corrections/retractions
- Article retraction
- Temporary or permanent bans for violators
Special Cases
- Anonymous complaints require substantial evidence
- Conflicts of interest must be fully disclosed
- Repeat complaints without new evidence won't be reconsidered
Complainant Rights
- Receive a written response with rationale
- Request reconsideration with new evidence
- Escalate to COPE or publisher if dissatisfied
The journal ensures confidentiality and impartiality throughout the process. Typical resolution time is 20 business days (up to 60 for complex cases).
Policy last updated: 11.04.2025.
Conflict of Interest Policy
A conflict of interest exists when professional judgment concerning primary interests (research validity) may be potentially influenced by secondary interests (financial gain, personal relationships, academic competition). Competing interests include any financial or non-financial factors that could affect the interpretation or presentation of results.
Author Responsibilities
All authors must:
- Disclose all potential conflicts of interest upon manuscript submission
- Declare all research funding sources
- Report any financial or personal relationships with organizations/individuals that could be interested in the research outcomes
- Include a conflict of interest statement in a dedicated manuscript section
Reviewer Responsibilities
Reviewers must:
- Decline to review manuscripts where conflicts exist
- Disclose any relationships with authors that might affect objectivity
- Refrain from using unpublished manuscript information for personal benefit
Editorial Responsibilities
The editorial board will:
- Evaluate declared conflicts of interest
- Determine necessary disclosure actions
- Reserve the right to reject submissions with undisclosed significant conflicts
- Ensure editorial process objectivity
Types of Conflicts
Financial:
- Research grants and funding
- Consultancy agreements
- Stock ownership or patents
- Paid lectures
Non-financial:
- Personal relationships
- Academic competition
- Intellectual biases
- Political/religious beliefs
Disclosure Procedure
All participants must complete a disclosure form including:
- All funding sources
- Financial and non-financial interests
- Any other circumstances potentially constituting conflicts
Conflict of Interest Disclosure Form
(For Authors, Reviewers, and Editors of Medical Journals)
Journal: ___________________________________________________
Manuscript Title: __________________________________________
Date of Completion: ________________________________________
Financial Interests
Please check all applicable options:
- Grants/Funding:
- Received grants from organizations related to the research topic
- Specify source: _______________________________
- Personal Payments:
- Consulting fees
- Honoraria for lectures/presentations
- Expert testimony payments
- Specify organization: _______________________________
- Stocks/Patents:
- Ownership of stocks/options in companies related to the research
- Patents (pending/issued) for technologies/drugs mentioned in the work
- Specify details: _______________________________
- Other Funding:
- Compensation for study participation
- Travel/accommodation expenses for conferences
- Other (specify): _______________________________
Non-Financial Interests
- Academic/Professional Relationships:
- Personal/family relationships with authors, reviewers, or editors
- Competing research projects
- Membership in advisory boards/associations
- Intellectual Preferences:
- Commitment to specific methodologies/theories
- Public stance on controversial issues related to the topic
- Other:
- Political/religious beliefs that may influence data interpretation
- Other (specify): _______________________________
Declaration
I, _________________________ (Full Name), confirm:
- No conflicts of interest
- The presence of conflicts of interest (listed above)
Signature: _________________________
Date: _________________________
Notes:
For pharmaceutically-funded research, additionally specify:
- Sponsor's role in study design, data collection, and result interpretation.
- Existence of publication agreements regardless of study outcomes.
The editorial office reserves the right to request supporting documentation.
Non-disclosure may result in manuscript retraction or sanctions per journal policy.
This form complies with ICMJE and COPE guidelines.
Non-Disclosure Consequences
Failure to disclose may result in:
- Manuscript rejection
- Article retraction
- Publication ban
- Notification to author's institution
Declaration Format
Each publication must contain a "Conflict of Interest" section stating either:
- The authors declare no conflicts of interest
- Detailed description of all potential conflicts
Special Cases
Pharmaceutical-funded research requires additional information:
- Sponsor's role in study design
- Access to raw data
- Publication rights
Editorial Board Policy
Editorial members with conflicts must:
- Recuse themselves from related decision-making
- Disclose interests prior to discussions
- Abstain from reviewing affected manuscripts
The journal adheres to ICMJE and COPE guidelines regarding conflicts of interest. This policy undergoes regular review and updates.
This policy applies to all editorial stages – from submission through publication and post-publication discussion. All participants in the publication process are expected to comply fully with these requirements.
Last updated: 11.04.2025.
Policy on Data Sharing and Reproducibility
This policy ensures adherence to scientific ethics standards and promotes the advancement of open science. The journal adheres to the principles of open science and strives to ensure transparency, reproducibility, and reliability of published research. This policy outlines the requirements for sharing data, code, and materials necessary for verifying and replicating results.
Data Sharing
Mandatory Data Disclosure
Authors must provide the underlying research data in one of the following formats:
- Submission to data repositories.
- Deposition in open databases (if the study involves publicly available datasets).
- Inclusion in the supplementary materials of the article (if the data volume is small).
Exceptions:
- Data containing confidential or personally identifiable information may be provided in anonymized form or upon request by the editorial board.
- In cases of restrictions (e.g., commercial confidentiality, ethical guidelines), authors must justify this in the manuscript.
Data Formats
Data should be submitted in machine-readable formats (CSV, JSON, TXT, XLSX, etc.) with clear documentation (metadata, codebook).
Reproducibility of Results
Provision of Code and Scripts
- For computational and statistical research, authors must provide source code (R, Python, MATLAB, etc.) in an open repository (GitHub, GitLab, CodeOcean).
- If proprietary software was used, the version and runtime parameters must be specified.
Methodological Description
Methods should be described in sufficient detail to allow replication of the experiment or analysis.
Reproducibility Verification
- The editorial board reserves the right to request data and code from authors to verify results.
- If results cannot be reproduced, the manuscript may be rejected or sent for revision.
Licensing and Data Citation
- Authors must select an open license (CC BY, CC0) for data and code.
- If third-party data is used, the source and terms of use must be cited.
Consequences of Non-Compliance
Failure to provide data or code without valid justification may result in:
- Rejection of the manuscript.
- Retraction of the publication (if errors or irreproducibility are identified).
Contact Information
For inquiries regarding data sharing, please contact the editorial office: clinvest@mail.ru.
Policy on Biomedical Ethical Oversight
This policy governs the ethical aspects of conducting and publishing medical research involving humans, animals, biological materials, and data, ensuring the protection of participants' rights, safety, and confidentiality, and guaranteeing protection of participants' rights, safety, and confidentiality; compliance with international and national regulations; maintenance of trust within the scientific community and society.
The journal adheres to strict principles of biomedical ethics in its publication practices, following international standards, including:
- WMA Declaration of Helsinki (October 2024);
- CIOMS Guidelines (Council for International Organizations of Medical Sciences);
- ICMJE Recommendations (International Committee of Medical Journal Editors);
- COPE Principles (Committee on Publication Ethics).
When presenting the results of experimental studies involving humans or animals, authors must explicitly state in the relevant section of the manuscript whether the procedures complied with ethical standards.
Ethical Requirements for Human Research
- All studies involving human participants must be approved by a local or national ethics committee (with approval number provided).
- For retrospective studies, confirmation of ethical compliance is required.
- Participants (or their legal representatives) must provide written informed consent (oral consent is permissible only with ethics committee approval if written consent is unattainable).
- If medical data or biological materials are used, authors must indicate whether consent was obtained for research use.
- Participant data must be anonymized (identifiable information removed).
- Compliance with Russia’s Federal Law "On Personal Data" (or equivalent legislation in the study’s country) is mandatory.
- Research involving children, pregnant women, individuals with mental disorders, or other vulnerable groups requires additional justification for their inclusion and enhanced protective measures.
Ethical Requirements for Animal Research
Experimental studies involving animals must confirm adherence to national and international regulations ensuring humane treatment, including:
- EAEU Good Laboratory Practice Rules (2016);
- Russian Ministry of Health Order No. 199n (2016);
- SanPiN 2.2.1.3218-14 (requirements for animal facilities);
- GOST 33215-2019 (laboratory animal welfare standards).
Manuscripts must include:
- The ethics committee approval number for animal research;
- Measures to minimize suffering (anesthesia, humane euthanasia methods);
- Justification for animal use (absence of alternative methods).
Authors’ Responsibilities
- Data integrity: Fabrication, falsification, or image manipulation (e.g., in histology/radiology) is prohibited.
- Conflict of interest: Authors must disclose financial ties to pharmaceutical companies, equipment manufacturers, or other stakeholders.
- Plagiarism & duplicate publication: Reusing data (own or others’) without proper citation is forbidden.
Editorial & Reviewer Responsibilities
- The editorial team verifies ethics committee approval during manuscript review.
- Reviewers must report suspected ethical violations (e.g., lack of informed consent, animal mistreatment).
- Editors may request additional documentation (ethics protocols, consent forms) if concerns arise.
Investigation of Violations
If ethical breaches are identified, the journal reserves the right to:
- Reject the manuscript at any stage;
- Retract a published article, notifying readers, repositories, and indexing databases;
- Report to the authors’ institutional ethics committee for further investigation;
- Impose a submission ban (up to 5 years) on offending authors.
Transparency & Corrections
- The journal publishes notices, corrections, and retractions if ethical violations are confirmed.
- Readers and authors may report concerns via email: clinvest@mail.ru.
Effective Date: April 11, 2025.
Policy for Post-Publication Discussions and Corrections
The journal is committed to maintaining high standards of scientific publication and ensuring transparency, error correction, and open discussion of published materials. After publication, the following options are available for interaction with authors and readers:
Corrections
- Minor errors (typos, small inaccuracies in data that do not affect conclusions) – a Corrigendum is published, specifying the changes.
- Errors introduced by the editorial team/publisher – a Publisher’s Note is issued.
- Major errors identified by authors or readers that affect the interpretation of results but do not invalidate the main conclusions – an Erratum is published with an explanation of the corrections.
Addenda
- If authors wish to provide additional significant information clarifying the study (without altering the conclusions), an Addendum may be published.
Comments & Replies
- Readers may submit a critical comment on an article, which, after peer review, will be published alongside the authors’ response.
- If the comment reveals serious concerns, the editorial board may initiate a further review of the article.
Article Retraction
An article may be retracted in cases of:
- Major errors that invalidate the conclusions.
- Ethical violations (plagiarism, data fabrication, duplicate publication).
- Unresolved conflicts of interest that were undisclosed at the time of publication.
A Retraction Notice will be issued, explaining the reasons for retraction.
Updated Versions (Versioning)
- In exceptional cases (e.g., discovery of new data), an article may be revised and republished as an updated version labeled "Revised Version".
Procedure for Initiating Changes
- Readers: May submit requests by emailing the editorial office: clinvest@mail.ru.
- Authors: Must notify the editorial team of any identified errors.
- Editors: Will make a decision after consulting reviewers and authors.
The journal reserves the right to modify this policy in accordance with COPE (Committee on Publication Ethics) guidelines and international standards of scientific publishing.
Last updated: 11.04.2025.
