Procedure for reviewing of manuscripts of scientific articles submitted for publication to the journal “Urologiia”

All scientific articles for the journal “Urologiia”, submitted in electronic or paper form, are subject to reviewing.

The Head of Editorial or/and Executive Secretary verifies the compliance of an article typography to the journal requirements within one week.  

The Head Editor determines the compliance of an article to the journal specialization within two weeks and forwards this article for scientific review to an appropriate specialist - Doctor of Medical Sciences. A member of the Editorial Board or engaged specialist, competent in the subject of reviewing article and who has publications covering the subject of reviewing article during last three years, can be a reviewer.

It’s necessary to point the compliance of an article to its title, characterize its relevance and scientific level, strengths and weaknesses and evaluate the expediency for publication in review.

The review is given to the author or to The Higher Attestation Commission upon its request without the reviewer’s sign, last name, position and place of work.

If the reviewer recommends correcting or improving something in the article, the Head of Editorial sends the review text to the author in order to make appropriate changes in his article.

In case the article was rejected, the Editorial sends reasonable refusal to the author. It’s possible to make an additional review by another reviewer under the urging of the author.

The final decision about publication and its time limits is made by the Editorial Board by open voting. It’s possible to publish articles in some cases when it has positive reviews, by joint decision of the Head of Editorial Board and the Head Editor.

Following the decision to publish an article, the Head of Editorial informs an author indicating time limits of the article’s edition.

Manuscripts of reviews are retained in Editorial for 5 years.

Reviewers’ responsibilities

• To contribute to the decision-making process, and to assist in improving the quality of the published paper by reviewing the manuscript objectively, in a timely manner
• To maintain the confidentiality of any information supplied by the editor or author. To not retain or copy the manuscript.
• To alert the editor to any published or submitted content that is substantially similar to that under review.
• To be aware of any potential conflicts of interest (financial, institutional, collaborative or other relationships between the reviewer and author) and to alert the editor to these, if necessary withdrawing their services for that manuscript.
• To follow in his work to «Singapore Statement on Research Integrity»