Peer-review process

The order of reviewing manuscripts of articles in the scientific and practical journal «Archives of psychiatry»

  1. The review of manuscripts of scientific articles, theses and others materials is carried out in order to select the relevant scientific papers and to maintain a high scientific and theoretical level of the scientific and practical journal «Archives of psychiatry».
  2. The review process in the scientific and practical journal «Archives of psychiatry» is based on the principle of double-blind peer review:
  • the information about name of author(s) is kept confidential and is not revealed to reviewer;
  • the information about name of reviewer is kept confidential and is not revealed to author(s).
  1. Only those articles that are prepared in strict accordance with the article requirements and that pass the primary control of the Editorial Board will be passed on for reviewing.
  2. In the case of remarks made at the stage of primary control, the article can be sent back to the author.
  3. The chief editor (deputy chief editor) determines for a manuscript the reviewer from the membership of the editorial board. If necessary, the external reviewer can be determined for a manuscript.
  • Reviewers (both members of the editorial board and external) should be known specialists in the subject matter of the submitted manuscript and have publications in this field of research.
  • Reviewer has the right to refuse a review if there is an explicit conflict of interest, which is reflected in the perception and interpretation of the manuscript materials.
  1. An article without personal data of author(s) is sent to the reviewer by e-mail. A standard review form is enclosed with the letter.
  2. When reviewing scientific articles, reviewers should evaluate:
  • relevance of the scientific problem raised in the article;
  • methodological level of the article;
  • scientific, theoretical and applied (if any) value of the performed research;
  • correctness of the given mathematical calculations, graphs, drawings;
  • correlation of conclusions of the author with available scientific concepts;
  • adherence by the authors of the requirements of scientific ethics, correctness of references to literary sources.
  1. Reviewer fill in a standard form and choose one of the following variants of recommendation:
  • recommended for publication;
  • recommended an article for publication after being revision by the author, taking into account the comments and wishes expressed;
  • the article requires additional review by another specialist;
  • not recommended for publication.
  1. Term of making recommendations: month from the receipt of the article.
  2. The reviewer sends review sends to the editorial by email.
  3. The final decision with respect to the article is made during a meeting of the Editorial Board in consideration of the received reviews.
  4. The decision of the Editorial Board is sent to the author(s). Articles that are subject to revision are sent to the author(s) together with the text of the review, which contains specific recommendations on revision of the article and comments from reviewer. The Editorial Board guarantees the anonymity of reviewers.
  5. The revised version of the article is sent for a second review. In the case the second review is also negative, the article is rejected and is not subject to further consideration.
  6. The articles accepted for publication, are handled further by the Editorial Board in accordance with the production process of preparation of the issue.