REGULATIONS on reviewing articles submitted to the editorial board
of scientific and practical Journal of Medical Law

І. General provisions

1. The procedure for reviewing articles in the journal follows the universal recommendations for publication. By submitting articles for publication in the scientific and practical journal “Medical Law” (hereinafter, the journal), the authors agree to go through the procedures set out on the website and in the journal.
2. These regulations govern the procedure for internal and external review of articles submitted to the editorial board of the journal.
3. In these regulations, the following terms are used in the following sense:

The author is a person or a group of persons (team of authors) who, based on the results of a research, have prepared a scientific article and submitted it to the editorial board of the journal.

Executive secretary – a person who organizes work on planning, timely and qualitative preparation of journal materials for publication.

The editor-in-chief is the person who heads the editorial board of the journal and makes the final decisions concerning the publication of the journal.

Internal review – consideration and expert evaluation of the article by a reviewer selected from among the members of the editorial board of the journal.

External review – review and expert evaluation of the article by a reviewer appointed from among those who have a doctorate or PhD in the relevant field, and published scientific papers on the issues stated in the article, and are not members of the editorial board of the journal. External review is performed by the reviewer on the basis of a review agreement concluded with him/her.

The editorial board is the governing body of the journal, which carries out a set of measures for the formation of materials and publishing of the journal. The editorial board consists of a scientific council and an editorial council. The composition of the editorial board of the journal is posted on the website of the journal.

Reviewer – an expert who acts on behalf of the journal and carries out scientific examination of materials, including articles sent to the journal, in order to determine the possibility of publishing these materials in the journal. The reviewer may be a person who has a degree of Doctor of Science or Doctor of Philosophy in the relevant field, and published scientific papers on the issues that were stated in the article.

Reviewing is a procedure of review and expert evaluation by a reviewer of articles submitted to the journal in order to establish its scientific and theoretical level and compliance with the requirements for journal articles.

Working group – a group of members of the editorial board of the journal consisting of at least four persons and the editor-in-chief of the journal, who decide to recommend the article for publication. The composition of the working group is determined by the editor-in-chief before starting work on the next issue of the journal.

4. All scientific articles submitted to the editorial board of the journal are subject to internal and external review.
5. Articles of members of the editorial board of the journal, researchers who have significant scientific achievements in the relevant field, as well as articles prepared for the journal, may not undergo the standard review procedure. In such circumstances, the decision to accept the article for publication is made by the working group, by a majority vote (the editor-in-chief has a casting vote).
6. When conducting a review, experts must adhere to the ethical requirements set by the Ethics Committee for Scientific Publications and be as objective and impartial, as possible.

ІІ. The procedure for reviewing articles

1. The author of the article submits to the editorial board of the journal an article drawn up in compliance with the requirements that must be met by the articles of the journal (hereinafter, the requirements). An article that does not meet these requirements is not registered and is not allowed for further review, with the notification the author of the article.

2. Before conducting the review, the executive secretary of the journal shall:

• Determine the degree of uniqueness of the author’s text using software (Plagiarism Detector Pro., Advego Plagiatus 1.3.3.2.).  If the percentage of originality of the article is less than 60%, the article is not allowed for further review and returned to the author.
• Carry out coding of article (assignment of registration number and depersonalization of data on the author of article).

3. The coded article is sent by e-mail to reviewers who have been selected by the editor-in-chief of the journal.

4. Within 5 calendar days from the date of receipt of the article, the reviewer must assess the possibility of reviewing the article taking into account their own qualifications, the stated issues of the article and the absence of conflict of interest [1], and inform the editor. In the event of a conflict of interest or inability to conduct a review, the editor-in-chief decides to appoint another reviewer. The reviewer’s refusal to review the article must be grounded.

5. Within 20 calendar days from the date of receipt of the article, the reviewer provides an opinion on the possibility of publishing the article in the journal. If necessary, the review period of the article can be extended up to 25 calendar days, in case of notification the editor-in-chief of the journal by the reviewer. Reviewers use the recommendations of the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors.

6. The procedure of internal and external review is anonymous for both the author of the article and for reviewers, and is carried out by two reviewers (one internal and one external reviewer) (double-blind review). The interaction between the author of the article and the reviewers takes place by e-mail correspondence via the executive secretary.

7. Based on the results of the review, both reviewers each fill in a standardized form (hereinafter, the form of article evaluation by the reviewer), which reflects one of these conclusions.

• Recommend the article for publication;
• Send the article for revision to the author;
• Do not recommend the article for publication.

The review form is sent to the executive secretary of the journal.

8. The executive secretary notifies the author of the article by sending an e-mail.
9. If the reviewer provides an opinion on the revision of the article, the executive secretary of the journal, in agreement with the editor-in-chief, sends the article to the author for revision. The list of remarks, questions, comments of the reviewer is attached to the letter. The deadline for completion is determined by the editor-in-chief of the journal and should not exceed 5 calendar days from the date of receipt of the article by the author.
10. The author adds a letter to the updated article, which contains answers to comments, questions from the reviewer and an explanation of all the changes that were made to the content of the article.
11. An updated version of the article is re-submitted to the reviewer for an opinion. Within 5 days from the date of receipt of the updated article, the reviewer provides one of the following conclusions:

• Recommend the article for publication;
• Do not recommend the article for publication.

12. In case of receiving one positive conclusion and one negative conclusion from the reviewers, the final decision on the possibility of publishing the article in the journal is made by the working group.
13. If the author of the article does not agree with the opinion of the reviewer, he/she can provide a reasoned answer to the editorial board of the journal. In such circumstances, the article is considered at a meeting of the working group, which examines in detail the opinion of the reviewer and the author of the article. The journal working group may send the article for further review to another reviewer. The working group reserves the right to reject the article in case of impossibility or unwillingness of the author to take into account the comments of the reviewer(s). The author of the article shall be notified separately about any of the decisions adopted by the working group.
14. The final decision on the possibility of publishing an article in the journal is made by the editor-in-chief of the journal and, if necessary, by the working group of the journal. The executive secretary informs the author of the article about the decision made.
15. An article that has been accepted for publication is submitted to the literary editor. Minor stylistic corrections that do not affect the content of the article are made by the technical editor without the consent of the author. At the request of the author, the layout of the article with the amendments is sent to the author for approval. If there are many linguistic and stylistic corrections and they can affect the content, the text of the article is agreed with the author, who, if desired, can edit the article, but must return the corrected version no later than 5 calendar days from the date of receipt of the article via email from the editor. The edit should be agreed within 2 calendar days from the date of receipt of the article with the edit of the literary editor to the e-mail address.
16. From among the articles that have been reviewed and processed by the technical editor of the journal, the next issue of the journal is formed, which is signed by the editor-in-chief and recommended for publication by the Academic Council of one of the co-founders of the journal.
17. Responsibility for copyright infringement rests with the author of the article. The author of the article is responsible for the accuracy of the facts and data, the validity of the conclusions and the scientific and theoretical level of the article.

     

    ---

    [1] Conflict of interest - the reviewer has a private interest in the sector where he/she performs official or representative powers, which may affect the objectivity or impartiality of decision-making, or action and inaction in the exercise of these powers.