The rules for reviewing

All articles submitted to the journal are peer reviewed

  1. The manuscript of research articles submitted to the editorial Board of the journal “Russian Allergology Journal” is reviewed by the Executive Secretary on compliance with the journal profile, the requirements for registration, is registered. Resp. the Secretary directs the article for reviewing to one or, if necessary, two reviewers.
  2. For peer-review of manuscripts articles as reviewers may be recruited as members of the editorial Board of the edition “Russian Allergology Journal” and highly qualified scientists and specialists of other organizations and businesses, with a deep professional knowledge and experience in a particular scientific direction, usually Ph. D., Professor and have in the past 3 years publications on the subject of the reviewed article.
  3. Remuneration of reviewers who are not members of the editorial Board shall be in accordance with the applicable rules.
  4. Reviewers are notified that the manuscripts are private property of the authors and are reportedly not subject to disclosure. Reviewers are not allowed to make copies of articles for their needs. The review is confidential. Violation of confidentiality is possible only if the reviewer declares unreliability or falsification of materials contained in the article. By reviewing not involved professionals working in the same institution where the work was performed.
  5. The authors are sent copies of reviews. The originals are stored in the editorial Board within five years from the date of publication of articles and inquiries are provided in the expert councils of the higher attestation Commission.
  6. If in a review article there is a reference to the need of correction, then the article is sent back for revision. In this case the date of submission is considered the date of return of the revised manuscript.
  7. Article sent to the author for revision should be returned corrected within a month. The revised manuscript should be accompanied by a letter from the authors containing responses to all remarks and explaining all changes made in the article.
  8. If the article is on the recommendation of the reviewer has undergone substantial revision, it is sent for the second reviewing to the same reviewer who made critical remarks.
  9. The editorial Board reserves the right to reject articles in case of the inability or unwillingness of the author to take into account the suggestions of the reviewer.
  10. If there are negative reviews of the manuscript from two different reviewers or one review of its revised version the article is rejected without consideration by other members of the editorial Board.
  11. In case 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 re-directed for review or discussion by the editorial Board.
  12. The decision on whether the publication is taken after reviewing the chief editor and if necessary by the Board.
  13. Responsible Secretary informs the author of the decision. The maximum period of reviewing from the date of receipt of the manuscript to the editorial office and the editorial decision making is 2 months.

The rules applicable to the review of the scientific article

The goal of the review is to promote a strict selection of author’s manuscripts for publication and offer specific recommendations for improvement. The review shall objectively evaluate a scientific article 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), about 1.5 pages of text of A4 size 12 font.

Requirements for the content review of the scientific article

The reviewer must:

  1. To determine compliance with the material presented in the article, the profile of the journal.
  2. To assess the relevance of the content of the article: does the level stated in it modern achievements of science and technology.
  3. To assess the significance of the results of research (scientific, practical).
  4. To specify how the requirements to registration of article: the volume of the article, annotation in Russian and English languages, the bibliography and references to it in the text, contact information about the authors, etc.
  5. To give a qualitative and/or quantitative evaluation of the adduced material:
    • actual;
    • illustrative.
  6. Evaluate the completeness and accuracy of the data presented.
  7. To evaluate the correctness and accuracy of the used (or input) the definitions and wording.
  8. Evaluate the literary style of presentation.
  9. To give valid conclusions about the article as a whole, the comments, if necessary – recommendations for its improvement.

The complex of these issues is of a General nature. Each item requires an individual approach to the choice of criteria for its evaluation.

In the final part reviews the results of the analysis of the article should be given a clear recommendation about its publication in the present form, or about the necessity of refining or processing (with constructive comments), and can be, and the inexpediency of its publication in this journal.

Chief editor of the magazine “Russian
Allergology Journal”,
MD, PhD, Professor Ilyina Natalia Ivanovna