"Practical allergology"

ORDER OF REFERRAL, REVIEW AND
PUBLICATION OF SCIENTIFIC ARTICLES,
received by the editorial office of the journal
Practical Allergology
1. A reviewer who previously agreed to cooperate with the journal receives an
email with a request to review the manuscript in accordance with his scientific
profile. The following information is included in the letter:
- title, abstract, key words of the manuscript;
- the date by which it is necessary to send a response to the editor about the consent
or refusal to review the manuscript.
2. The consent of the reviewer to cooperate with the journal implies agreement
with the Regulation on peer review, as well as with the rules and standards of
editorial ethics, which the journal "Practical Allergology" adheres to in its work.
If the reviewer does not agree with these or those rules adopted in the journal,
please inform the editor-in-chief about this before starting the reviewing procedure.
3. Reviewing is carried out on a voluntary basis. If the manuscript corresponds to
the field of scientific interests of the reviewer, he has the time and desire to
complete this work, the reviewer agrees to prepare a review of the manuscript.
4. After obtaining consent, the reviewer is sent the full text of the manuscript and
the review template.
5. When evaluating the manuscript, the editorial board asks to evaluate the
following parameters: correspondence of the subject of the article to the subject of
the journal; information content and sufficiency of the abstract of the article;
novelty and significance of the results; validity and correctness of the application
of the methods used in the study; correspondence of the results obtained to the
goals and objectives of the study; sufficiency and completeness of citation of
literature on the research topic; sufficiency and justification of illustrative material
and tables; correctness of the form and style of presentation of the material.
6. In conclusion, the editorial board asks for a recommendation (with a brief
justification):
- to recommend the manuscript for publication in the presented form (without
comments);
- to recommend the manuscript for publication with minor (technical) corrections;
- to recommend the manuscript for publication after substantial revision;
- the manuscript needs additional reviewing by another specialist;
- reject the manuscript.
7. If the review contains recommendations for correcting and revising the article,
the executive secretary sends the author a copy of the review text with a proposal
to take them into account when editing the manuscript or reasonably (partially or
completely) refute them, and the editorial board of the journal undertakes to send
copies of the reviews to the Ministry of Education and Science Of the Russian
Federation upon receipt of the corresponding request to the editorial office of the
publication.
8. The manuscript, revised by the author in accordance with the comments
received, or a letter with a reasoned refusal to correct them, are sent for review to
the same reviewer who made the critical comments. Also, the author of the article
has the right to contact the editorial office of the journal with a reasoned request to
send his manuscript to another reviewer.
9. The reviewer re-evaluates the article taking into account the changes made or a
reasoned refusal to eliminate them.
10. Correspondence between the author and the reviewer is conducted through the
executive secretary of the editorial board.
11. The accepted term for reviewing the manuscript is no more than a month. At
the request of the reviewer, this period can be extended by agreement with the
editorial board.
12. Reviews are stored in the archive of the editorial office of the journal for 5
(five) years from the date of their signing by the reviewer.