- » Aim and Scope
- » Section Policies
- » Publication Frequency
- » Open Access Policy
- » Archiving
- » Peer-Review
- » Indexation
- » Publishing Ethics
- » Founder
- » Author fees
- » Disclosure and Conflict of Interest
- » Plagiarism detection
- » Preprint and postprint Policy
Aim and Scope
The main aims of the Journal include collecting and generalizing the knowledge in hypertensiology; education and professional development of cardiologists and medical doctors of other specialties, who deal with different issues regarding diagnostics, management and prevention of hypertension in both clinical practice and research. The Journal also calls attention to the most urgent and up-to-date questions in hypertensiology, cardiology and related sciences. There are additional objectives, such as increasing the availability, accessibility and recognition of Russian medical scientific achievements at the international level by improving the quality of the publication and the way they are presented; enabling the exchange of opinions and information between scientists and their wider communication.
The main criteria for publication selection fit with the mentioned objectives and include currency, singularity, scientific and practical novelty, applied relevance etc.
Section Policies
 Open Submissions |
 Indexed |
Peer Reviewed |
| Open Submissions |
Indexed |
Peer Reviewed |
| Open Submissions |
Indexed |
Peer Reviewed |
Publication Frequency
6 номеров в год. Подписка, архивные выпуски (до 2012 года) размещены в свободном доступе.
Open Access Policy
Этот журнал предоставляет непосредственный открытый доступ к своему контенту, исходя из следующего принципа: свободный открытый доступ к результатам исследований способствует увеличению глобального обмена знаниями.
Archiving
- Russian State Library (RSL)
- National Electronic-Information Consortium (NEICON)
Peer-Review
All manuscripts submitted to Arterial’naya Gipertenziya are subject to peer-review. Submitted papers must adhere to the Journal scope, Editorial policies and ethics, and submission requirements.
The peer-review process consists of the following steps:
1. Initial expertise. Executive secretary provides the initial expertise of the submitted manuscript for adherence to the requirements and policies (including ethical requirements for human and animal experimentation) of the Journal within 5 days since article submission. All submitted articles are subject to plagiarism control (anti-plagiarism program “AntiPlagiat”, Russia). The Editorial Board has a right to reject an article if it does not meet the requirements or does not adhere to the scope of the Journal and Editorial policies and ethics.
2. External peer-review. The journal "Arterial Hypertension" is a peer-review (anonymous for both authors and reviewers) periodical. After initial expertise all submissions are assigned to the editors for evaluation based on the publication criteria and independent experts are assigned. Editor determine the number of required reviews, but usually peer review is performed by two independent experts assigned by the Editor-in-Chief, Scientific Editor or/and Editorial Board according to the topic of the submitted manuscript. Any specialist with the scientific degree (PhD) who does not have any scientific, financial or any other conflict of interest either with the authors or editors can be a reviewer. Reviewing is voluntary and free of charge. The reviewer cannot be an author or co-author of the considered article.
Whether any potential conflict of interest is present, a reviewer must declare that and deny paper evaluation. In particular, reviewers and editors (who consider the manuscript) must not be involved in the peer review process if:
– They work at the same institution or organization as an author or authors (currently or recently, within last 5 years)
– They collaborate with an author (currently or recently, within last 5 years)
– They have published with an author during the past 5 years
– They have a personal relationship with an author that does not allow them to evaluate the manuscript objectively
Authors must not suggest reviewers or editors who will have competing interests.
Authors may provide an external review along with the manuscript, however, it does not preclude the peer-review procedure.
Review procedure is confidential. Reviewers are notified that the manuscripts are the intellectual property of the authors and the information should not be disclosed. Reviewers are not allowed to use the manuscripts for their needs. Violation of anonymity and confidentiality is possible only in case of alleged inaccuracy or falsification. Reviewers must not also use any unpublished data that they have had considered.
Reviewers should follow the policies and ethical standards of the journal "Arterial Hypertension" published on the website. The recommendations for critical evaluation of the paper and the report writing are given to the reviewers. Review process should be completed within 3 weeks.
Review might be written in a standard form (proposed by editors) or in free form, and should cover the following issues:
- Is the topic relevant?
- Is the study novel?
- Is the problem addressed and the obtained results important?
- Are the applied methods relevant and valid?
- Is the presented information sufficient and capable?
- Is the discussion correct and complete?
- Are the conclusions consistent with the goals and objectives of the research?
- Are both manuscript and supplement materials (text, tables, illustrations, bibliographic references) acceptable and sufficient?
- Are the tables, figures and illustrations relevant and of high quality?
- Are the writing style and terms terminology acceptable and compliant with the topic?
Reviewer must give an objective evaluation of a manuscript. No personal criticism is acceptable. The reviewer’s opinion must be given in a clear and comprehensive form.
In particular, a reviewer should pay attention to the references (e.g. to the significant and relevant, but missed references). Any statement should be confirmed by a reference. Whether any plagiarism (or self-plagiarism) is noted, it should be checked, and the editors must be informed.
The final part of the review should include reasonable conclusions and a clear recommendation (for the editors) whether to publish or not the paper. In case of negative evaluation of the manuscript detailed and motivated comments should be provided. In case on non-adherence to the manuscript does not comply with one or more criteria the reviewer should give recommendations to improve the article denoting inaccuracies and errors.
The expert review (in an anonymous form) is sent to the authors.
3. Editorial evaluation. The editors evaluate the papers planned for publishing in the next issue of the journal. Editorial Board approves the list of the articles to be published in the current issue of the journal. The editors have the right to reject an article whether there are any questions about certain aspects of the article and to send it for further (additional) review to an assigned specialist (including either a member of the editors or the editorial team).
Editorial Board makes a decision on paper publication after the expert evaluation. Editor-in-Chief, and/or the Deputy Editor, and/or Publishing Editor approve the content of the issue before sending the proofs to the press. Editor-in-Chief, and/or the Deputy Editor assign the Publishing Editor of the issue.
Informing authors about the review results
After evaluation and peer-review the following decisions may be taken:
- Accept
- Minor Revision
- Major Revision
- Reject
- In case of the first option (accept for publication), the editors determine the priority level for each article and fix the terms of publication. In some cases (e.g., highly specific work) publication of the article may be postponed until the theme issue is completed.
- If the paper is rejected, the anonymous reviews are sent to the authors along with the letter with a motivated refusal to publish the manuscript. In case of expert disagreement the Editorial Board can assign an additional review of the manuscript before making final decision.
- When revision is required, reviews and editors’ comments are sent to the authors. The article is considered received on the date of primary submission, and accepted on the date of positive editors’ decision.
Authors have 4 weeks (28 days) to resubmit the revised manuscript, and may contact Arterial’naya Gipertenziya = Arterial Hypertension if they require an extension. Along with the revised paper they should send a cover letter - response to the reviewers. Revised articles are reviewed again, the final decision is made by the Editorial Board.
Authors may provide a reasoned formal appeal for rejected submissions and/or intercede for re-reviewing. Authors must provide reasoned point-to-point responses to the reviewers’ and/or editors’ comments. In this case an additional evaluation can be assigned by the Editorial Board. The appeal process may take longer than the original submission process. Authors can re-submit a revised paper, and the last one will be proceeded as primary submitted.
Also, in case of disagreement with reviewers’ or editors’ comments, authors may withdraw an article that they must notify the editors about.
The articles are not accepted for publication,
- if they are not adherent to Journal Editorial policies and ethics;
- if they do not meet the submission requirements (if the authors deny to make any corrections, the manuscript may be rejected without further review);
- if the authors do not make corrections according to the reviewers’ comments without providing a reasonable reply.
The reviews are kept for five years. Unaccepted manuscripts are not kept.
Accepted manuscripts will not be returned.
In case of a proper request the copies of reviews are sent to the Ministry of Education and Science of Russian Federation.
Indexation
Articles in "Arterial’naya Gipertenziya" ("Arterial Hypertension") are indexed by several systems:
- Russian Scientific Citation Index (RSCI) – a database, accumulating information on papers by Russian scientists, published in native and foreign titles. The RSCI project is under development since 2005 by “Electronic Scientific Library” foundation (elibrary.ru).
- Google Scholar is a freely accessible web search engine that indexes the full text of scholarly literature across an array of publishing formats and disciplines. The Google Scholar index includes most peer-reviewed online journals of Europe and America's largest scholarly publishers, plus scholarly books and other non-peer reviewed journals.
Publishing Ethics
The section is prepared according to the files (http://health.elsevier.ru/attachments/editor/file/ethical_code_final.pdf) of Elsevier publisher (https://www.elsevier.com/) and files (http://publicationethics.org/resources) from Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE - http://publicationethics.org/).
1. Introduction
1.1. The publication in a peer reviewed learned journal, serves many purposes outside of simple communication. It is a building block in the development of a coherent and respected network of knowledge. For all these reasons and more it is important to lay down standards of expected ethical behaviour by all parties involved in the act of publishing: the author, the journal editor, the peer reviewer, the publisher and the society for society-owned or sponsored journal: "Arterial’naya Gipertenziya" ("Arterial Hypertension")
1.2.Publisher has a supporting, investing and nurturing role in the scholarly communication process but is also ultimately responsible for ensuring that best practice is followed in its publications.
1.3. Publisher takes its duties of guardianship over the scholarly record extremely seriously. Our journal programmes record «the minutes of science» and we recognise our responsibilities as the keeper of those «minutes» in all our policies not least the ethical guidelines that we have here adopted.
2. Duties of Editors
2.1.Publication decision – The Editor of a learned "Arterial’naya Gipertenziya" ("Arterial Hypertension") is solely and independently responsible for deciding which of the articles submitted to the journal should be published, often working on conjunction with the relevant society (for society-owned or sponsored journals). The validation of the work in question and its importance to researchers and readers must always underwrite such decisions. The Editor may be guided by the policies of the "Arterial’naya Gipertenziya" ("Arterial Hypertension") journal’s editorial board and constrained by such legal requirements as shall then be in force regarding libel, copyright infringement and plagiarism. The editor may confer with other editors or reviewers (or society officers) in making this decision.
2.2.Fair play – An editor should evaluate manuscripts for their intellectual content without regard to race, gender, sexual orientation, religious belief, ethnic origin, citizenship, or political philosophy of the authors.
2.3.Confidentiality – The editor and any editorial staff of "Arterial’naya Gipertenziya" ("Arterial Hypertension") must not disclose any information about a submitted manuscript to anyone other than the corresponding author, reviewers, potential reviewers, other editorial advisers, and the publisher, as appropriate.
2.4.Disclosure and Conflicts of interest
2.4.1. Unpublished materials disclosed in a submitted manuscript must not be used in an editor’s own research without the express written consent of the author. Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not used for personal advantage.
2.4.2. Editors should recuse themselves (i.e. should ask a co-editor, associate editor or other member of the editorial board instead to review and consider) from considering manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies, or (possibly) institutions connected to the papers.
2.5.Vigilance over published record – An editor presented with convincing evidence that the substance or conclusions of a published paper are erroneous should coordinate with the publisher (and/or society) to promote the prompt publication of a correction, retraction, expression of concern, or other note, as may be relevant.
2.6.Involvement and cooperation in investigations – An editor should take reasonably responsive measures when ethical complaints have been presented concerning a submitted manuscript or published paper, in conjunction with the publisher (or society). Such measures will generally include contacting the author of the manuscript or paper and giving due consideration of the respective complaint or claims made, but may also include further communications to the relevant institutions and research bodies.
3. Duties of Reviewers
3.1.Contribution to Editorial Decisions – Peer review assists the editor in making editorial decisions and through the editorial communications with the author may also assist the author in improving the paper. Peer review is an essential component of formal scholarly communication, and lies at the heart of the scientific method. Publisher shares the view of many that all scholars who wish to contribute to publications have an obligation to do a fair share of reviewing.
3.2.Promptness – Any selected referee who feels unqualified to review the research reported in a manuscript or knows that its prompt review will be impossible should notify the editor of "Arterial’naya Gipertenziya" ("Arterial Hypertension") and excuse himself from the review process.
3.3.Confidentiality – Any manuscripts received for review must be treated as confidential documents. They must not be shown to or discussed with others except as authorised by the editor.
3.4.Standard and objectivity – Reviews should be conducted objectively. Personal criticism of the author is inappropriate. Referees should express their views clearly with supporting arguments.
3.5.Acknowledgement of Sources – Reviewers should identify relevant published work that has not been cited by the authors. Any statement that an observation, derivation, or argument had been previously reported should be accompanied by the relevant citation. A reviewer should also call to the editor’s attention any substantial similarity or overlap between the manuscript under consideration and any other published paper of which they have personal knowledge.
3.6.Disclosure and Conflict of Interest
3.6.1.Unpublished materials disclosed in a submitted manuscript must not be used in a reviewer’s own research without the express written consent of the author. Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not used for personal advantage.
3.6.2. Reviewers should not consider manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies, or institutions connected to the papers.
4. Duties of Authors
4.1.Reporting standards
4.1.1. Authors of reports of original research should present an accurate account of the work performed as well as an objective discussion of its significance. Underlying data should be represented accurately in the paper. A paper should contain sufficient detail and references to permit others to replicate the work. Fraudulent or knowingly inaccurate statements constitute unethical behaviour and are unacceptable.
4.1.2. Review and professional publication articles should also be accurate and objective, and editorial 'opinion’ works should be clearly identified as such.
4.2.Data Access and Retention – Authors may be asked to provide the raw data in connection with a paper for editorial review, and should be prepared to provide public access to such data (consistent with the ALPSP-STM Statement on Data and Databases), if practicable, and should in any event be prepared to retain such data for a reasonable time after publication.
4.3.Originality and Plagiarism
4.3.1. The authors should ensure that they have written entirely original works, and if the authors have used the work and/or words of others, this has been appropriately cited or quoted.
4.3.2. Plagiarism takes many forms, from ‘passing off’ another’s paper as the author’s own paper, to copying or paraphrasing substantial parts of another’s paper (without attribution), to claiming results from research conducted by others. Plagiarism in all its forms constitutes unethical publishing behaviour and is unacceptable.
4.4.Multiple, Redundant or Concurrent Publication
4.4.1. An author should not in general publish manuscripts describing essentially the same research in more than one journal of primary publication. Submitting the same manuscript to more than one journal concurrently constitutes unethical publishing behaviour and is unacceptable.
4.4.2. In general, an author should not submit for consideration in another journal a previously published paper.
4.4.3. Publication of some kinds of articles (eg, clinical guidelines, translations) in more than one journal is sometimes justifiable, provided certain conditions are met. The authors and editors of the journals concerned must agree to the secondary publication, which must reflect the same data and interpretation of the primary document. The primary reference must be cited in the secondary publication. Further detail on acceptable forms of secondary publication can be found at www.icmje.org.
4.5.Acknowledgement of Sources – Proper acknowledgment of the work of others must always be given. Authors should cite publications that have been influential in determining the nature of the reported work. Information obtained privately, as in conversation, correspondence, or discussion with third parties, must not be used or reported without explicit, written permission from the source. Information obtained in the course of confidential services, such as refereeing manuscripts or grant applications, must not be used without the explicit written permission of the author of the work involved in these services.
4.6.Authorship of the Paper
4.6.1. Authorship should be limited to those who have made a significant contribution to the conception, design, execution, or interpretation of the reported study. All those who have made significant contributions should be listed as co-authors. Where there are others who have participated in certain substantive aspects of the research project, they should be acknowledged or listed as contributors.
4.6.2. The corresponding author should ensure that all appropriate co-authors and no inappropriate co-authors are included on the paper, and that all co-authors have seen and approved the final version of the paper and have agreed to its submission for publication.
4.7.Hazards and Human or Animal Subjects
4.7.1. If the work involves chemicals, procedures or equipment that have any unusual hazards inherent in their use, the author must clearly identify these in the manuscript.
4.7.2. If the work involves the use of animal or human subjects, the author should ensure that the manuscript contains a statement that all procedures were performed in compliance with relevant laws and institutional guidelines and that the appropriate institutional committee(s) have approved them. Authors should include a statement in the manuscript that informed consent was obtained for experimentation with human subjects. The privacy rights of human subjects must always be observed.
4.8. Disclosure and Conflicts of Interest
4.8.1. All authors should disclose in their manuscript any financial or other substantive conflict of interest that might be construed to influence the results or interpretation of their manuscript. All sources of financial support for the project should be disclosed.
4.8.2. Examples of potential conflicts of interest which should be disclosed include employment, consultancies, stock ownership, honoraria, paid expert testimony, patent applications/registrations, and grants or other funding. Potential conflicts of interest should be disclosed at the earliest possible stage.
4.9. Fundamental errors in published works – When an author discovers a significant error or inaccuracy in a published work, it is the author’s obligation to promptly notify the editor of "Arterial’naya Gipertenziya" ("Arterial Hypertension") journal and cooperate with Publisher to retract or correct the paper, If the editor or the publisher learn from a third party that a published work contains a significant error, it is the obligation of the author to promptly retract or correct the paper.
5. Duties of the Publisher (and if relevant, Society)
5.1. Publisher should adopt policies and procedures that support editors, reviewers and authors of "Arterial’naya Gipertenziya" ("Arterial Hypertension") in performing their ethical duties under these ethics guidelines. The publisher should ensure that the potential for advertising or reprint revenue has no impact or influence on editorial decisions.
5.2. The publisher should support "Arterial’naya Gipertenziya" ("Arterial Hypertension") journal editors in the review of complaints raised concerning ethical issues and help communications with other journals and/or publishers where this is useful to editors.
5.3. Publisher should develop codes of practice and inculcate industry standards for best practice on ethical matters, errors and retractions.
5.4. Publisher should provide specialised legal review and counsel if necessary.
Founder
- Federal Almazov North-West Medical Research Centre
Author fees
Publication in journal is free of charge for all the authors.
Disclosure and Conflict of Interest
Unpublished materials disclosed in a submitted manuscript must not be used in a reviewer’s own research without the express written consent of the author. Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not used for personal advantage.
Reviewers should not consider manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies, or institutions connected to the papers.
Plagiarism detection
"Arterial’naya Gipertenziya" ("Arterial Hypertension") use native russian-language plagiarism detection software Antiplagiat to screen the submissions. If plagiarism is identified, the COPE guidelines on plagiarism will be followed.
Preprint and postprint Policy
Prior to acceptance and publication in "Arterial’naya Gipertenziya" ("Arterial Hypertension"), authors may make their submissions available as preprints on personal or public websites.
As part of submission process, authors are required to confirm that the submission has not been previously published, nor has been submitted. After a manuscript has been published in "Arterial’naya Gipertenziya" ("Arterial Hypertension") we suggest that the link to the article on journal's website is used when the article is shared on personal or public websites.
Glossary (by SHERPA)
