Original research submitted to Bulletin of Pirogov National Medical & Surgical Center journal is reviewed by internal and external experts.

Editorial articles are not subject to external reviewing.

We offer a double-blind peer review, i.e. both the reviewer and author identities are concealed from the reviewers, and vice versa, throughout the review process. However, the reviewers, if they wish, may sign their notes. An open expert overview does not imply that the authors may directly correspond to the reviewers; all requests should be sent as before to the Editorial Team.

Internal reviewing

On receipt of a manuscript, the managing editor, and the executive secretary check for:

  • compliance with the Journal’s profile,
  • supporting documents,
  • design and structure of the article,
  • information about research funding, conflicts of interest, gratitude, the authors’ contribution to the study;
  • compliance with the ethical standards,
  • the originality of content by plagiarism screening service.

At the stage of internal reviewing, the paper could be returned to the authors for revision. The papers suited for further reviewing will undergo expert evaluation by two independent reviewers. External experts are chosen by the executive secretary.

External reviewing

All reviewers are competent specialists in the subjects of papers under review and have relevant during the recent 3 years. Eligible for reviewing are the members of the Editorial Board and guest experts in the appropriate branch of medicine. As a rule, an article is reviewed by two external experts and statistical analysis editor.

The Editorial Board enters into correspondence with the author pointed out in the cover letter as a corresponding one. The corresponding author adjusts all changes with his/her co-authors.

If a review contains recommendations for any corrections and revisions in the paper, the editors send the reviewer’s comments to the corresponding author requesting to consider these comments while preparing a new version of the paper or to disprove them (partially or fully) in a well-argued manner.

The author italicizes the corrections in colors and gives the answers to the reviewers’ questions while pointing to what he agrees with and what he doesn’t at the end of the manuscript. Revising the manuscript should not exceed 2 months starting from the time the notice to introduce changes is sent to the authors. The paper revised by the author is recurrently forwarded for review.

If the author disagrees with the reviewer’s opinion, he should submit a well-reasoned response to the editorial office. In the event the author and the reviewers face insoluble conflicts regarding the manuscript, the editorial office is eligible to send it for additional reviewing. In a conflict situation, the decision is to be made by the Editor-in-Chief.

If the authors decide not to revise their articles, they have to notify the editorial office, in writing or orally, of their refusal from publishing the paper. Should the authors fail to return the revised version within 3 months after receiving the review, even in the absence of the authors’ notice of their refusal to revise the paper, the editorial office will strike it off the register. In such cases, the authors are duly notified that their manuscript won’t be published owing to the expiration of the time specified for revision of the paper.

The decision to deny publication of the paper is made by the Editor-in-Chief and editorial staff according to the reviewers’ recommendations. The paper not recommended for publication won’t be reconsidered. The editorial office sends a well-argued denial of publication and recommendations for paper correction to the authors and undertakes to forward copies of the reviews to the Ministry of Education and Science of Russian Federation, should the editors receive an appropriate request to do so.

The Journal uses an electronic reviewing process and has an electronic database of reviewers. If the reviewer is appointed, he receives the review form and the article itself by email. Following the review of the article, the reviewer makes recommendations:

  • Manuscript accepted. Reviewers have no major remarks. The paper is to be handled by a proofreader, editor, and layout artist.
  • Manuscript revision. The paper needs minor or major revision and second time reviewing. The corresponding author receives an anonymous reviewer’s comments by email, need to revise paper and then upload revised version to the Journal’s site.
  • Manuscript denied. The corresponding author receives a well-argued denial.