Procedure for reviewing

Single-blind peer review: the peer reviewers know the names of the authors, but the authors do not know who reviewed their manuscript.

Responsibilities of a Reviewer:​

1. ​Evaluate manuscripts critically but constructively.
2. Prepare detailed comments about the research and manuscript to help authors improve their work.
3. Recommend to the editor whether the paper is suitable for the journal.
4. Declare real or perceived conflicts of interests—this may be personal or professional—anything that would prevent the reviewer from providing an objective analysis of the work.
5. Treat the manuscript as confidential (eg, reviewers may not contact others about the work).
6. Avoid making derogatory comments to the authors.
7. Refrain from using the work they review in any way in their own work.
8. Avoid communicating directly with the authors.

The World Association of Medical Editors (http://www.wame.org) has educational materials online for editors, and these include a list of reviewer responsibilities: http://wame.org/syllabus-for-prospective-and-newly-appointed-editors

The role and responsibilities of the reviewer can also be found in CSE’s White Paper on Promoting Integrity in Scientific Journal Publications: https://www.councilscienceeditors.org/resource-library/editorial-policies/white-paper-on-publication-ethics/

Procedure for reviewing of manuscripts of scientific articles submitted for publication to the journal “Obstetrics and Gynecology”

All scientific articles for the journal “Obstetrics and Gynecology”, submitted in electronic or paper form, are subject to reviewing.

The Head of Editorial or/and Executive Secretary verifies the compliance of an article typography to the journal requirements within one week.  

The Head Editor determines the compliance of an article to the journal specialization within two weeks and forwards this article for scientific review to an appropriate specialist - Doctor of Medical Sciences. A member of the Editorial Board or engaged specialist, competent in the subject of reviewing article and who has publications covering the subject of reviewing article during last three years, can be a reviewer.

It’s necessary to point the compliance of an article to its title, characterize its relevance and scientific level, strengths and weaknesses and evaluate the expediency for publication in review.

The review is given to the author or to The Higher Attestation Commission upon its request without the reviewer’s sign, last name, position and place of work.

If the reviewer recommends correcting or improving something in the article, the Head of Editorial sends the review text to the author in order to make appropriate changes in his article.

The editorial board of the journal sends the review to the authors. If the reviewer recommends any refinements, the editorial staff would suggest the author either make corrections or dispute them reasonably. When a revision is requested, the author must resubmit the revised manuscript within two months. The modified version of the article is re-sent for review.

If authors refuse to revise the manuscript, they should notify the editorial board verbally or write about the withdrawal of their manuscript from submission to publication. If authors fail to return the revised manuscript after three months from sending them the review, the editorial board takes the manuscript off the register and notifies the author accordingly.

Each manuscript will only be allowed three rounds of review and revisions. Authors are thus urged to address all issues raised by the reviewers after the first round of peer-review. If authors fail to do so after the third round, the editorial board takes the manuscript off the register and notifies the author accordingly.

Should irreconcilable differences in opinions between authors and reviewers arise, the editorial board will send the manuscript for additional review, or the editor-in-chief resolves the conflict at an editorial board meeting.

In case the article was rejected, the Editorial sends reasonable refusal to the author. It’s possible to make an additional review by another reviewer under the urging of the author.

The final decision about publication and its time limits is made by the Editorial Board by open voting. It’s possible to publish articles in some cases when it has positive reviews, by joint decision of the Head of Editorial Board and the Head Editor.

Following the decision to publish an article, the Head of Editorial informs an author indicating time limits of the article’s edition.

Manuscripts of reviews are retained in Editorial for 5 years.

The Editorial Board of the journal plans to switch to double-blind peer review starting July 01, 2021, as a way to minimize reviewer bias. In double-blind peer review, neither the reviewers nor the authors know each other's identity. While we have successfully used the single-blind peer-review system so far, we believe that moving to double-blind peer review will be better to ensure scientific integrity and cooperation with the authors.

Reviewers’ responsibilities

• To contribute to the decision-making process, and to assist in improving the quality of the published paper by reviewing the manuscript objectively, in a timely manner
• To maintain the confidentiality of any information supplied by the editor or author. To not retain or copy the manuscript.
• To alert the editor to any published or submitted content that is substantially similar to that under review.
• To be aware of any potential conflicts of interest (financial, institutional, collaborative or other relationships between the reviewer and author) and to alert the editor to these, if necessary withdrawing their services for that manuscript.
• To follow in his work to «Singapore Statement on Research Integrity»