Manuscript Review Rules for “Disaster Medicine” Journal

Approved by Editorial Board

on June 20, 2002

Minutes of Board # 5


1. Review method – «single-blind peer review»: the reviewer knows the author’s name, the author does not know the name of the reviewer; provides for three or more reviewers for all articles in the issue.

2. The manuscripts submitted to “Disaster Medicine” journal are peer reviewed to ensure the conformance of the content to the requirements specified for scientific publications.

3. The editorial staff previews the received manuscripts to see if they are properly prepared in compliance with GOSTs in force and with “The Manuscript Submission Requirements for “Disaster Medicine” Journal” which are regularly published in the journal. In case substantial shortcomings are present, the editorial staff is entitled to demand their correction.

4. The editor-in-chief forwards the manuscripts to leading scientists and specialists in the fields concerned for expert review.

5. The reviews are preserved in the archives for 3 years.

6. The reviewer should state his evaluation on:

• article’s relevance as to the scope of the journal;

• importance and scientific validation of the issues discussed;

• novelty, timeliness, originality of the ideas and theories brought out;

• logicality and consistency of presentation, terminology use;

• correctness of composition of the abstract, of key words choice and so on.

7. The reviews should contain the titles of the reviewed articles in full and surnames and initials of their authors.

8. The length of reviews is not limited.

9. The reviews should be forwarded to editors’ office in two paper copies and in electronic format. They should contain places of employment of reviewers, their positions, academic degrees and titles and contact telephone numbers.

10. The paper copies should be dated and signed by reviewers.

11. Review submission date should be within 20 days from the date of presentation.

12. The manuscripts should be processed depending on reviewer’s evaluation as follows:

12.1. If the reviewer finds the material suitable for publication the editorial staff prepares it for publication according to established procedure.

12.2. If the reviewer finds that the material needs some additional work of author(s) prior to its publication the editorial staff forwards the review text to the author(s). The date of receipt of the revised text should be considered as the date of manuscript submission.

12.3. If the reviewer finds that the material can be published after some corrections by editorial staff the editors reach an agreement with authors on the corrections made and prepare the manuscript for publication according to established procedure.

12.4. If the reviewer rejects the article outright the editorial staff sends the review to the author(s) (without disclosing the reviewer’s identity) and the unpublished article is preserved in the archives for 3 years.

13. The author is entitled, in case of disagreement with a reviewer, to present a reasoned reply to his criticisms. The editorial staff acquaints the reviewer with the reply and the possible discrepancies should be resolved at the meeting of the editorial board.