1. The author sends an article prepared and edited in accordance with the requirements of the edition to the e-mail of the editorial office firstname.lastname@example.org
. Any mails to the editor-in-chief, to the members of the editorial board or of the editorial council, or to the official address of the RSUH or any other institution, are not considered, and private correspondence with them regardless of its content not affects the process of reviewing the article.
Please follow this letter content example:
AUTHOR'S SURNAME Request for publication of the article (Example: SMITH Request for publication of the article).
Content of the letter:
Please consider my article (Title) in the scientific peer-reviewed electronic publication “Articult”. By this letter I confirm the authorship of the submitted article and my agreement with the conditions for its consideration and publication. I also confirm that this article has not been published and is not under consideration in any other publication either in full or in part, including unofficial available publications on websites, blogs, forums, and that the article is an original scientific study that does not contain any illicit materials, unreliable data or other violations of scientific ethics.
Signature (full name as in the ID)
The attached file name needs to be in this form:
FAMILY NAMEArticle title (Example: SMITH The Art of Art Article, if Smith is theauthor and The art of art is the title)
2. In case of correspondence of the submitted article to formal requirements, the article is assigned an incoming number and it is sent for blind peer review. The author is notified of this by a return letter indicating the number assigned to the article.
3. In case of inconsistency of the submitted article to formal requirements, the author gets refuse to accept the article as not corresponding to formal requirements, without specifying the specific reasons for the decision. The editors do not enter into correspondence with the authors about the details of the formal requirements to the articles, a detailed description of which is published on the journal's website. In this case, the author has the right to reedit the article in accordance with formal requirements and re-send it for the further consideration.
4. After receiving a review of the article, the author is notified about this.
4.1. In the case of a negative review, the author is informed that his article is rejected and can not be published in the journal. The editorial board does not enter into further correspondence.
4.2. In the event that the reviewer believes that the publication is possible after certain changes and improvements, the author gets letter with indications about necessary changes.
4.2.1. The author in time not more than 30 calendar days should submit the edited text of the article taking into account the comments made by the reviewer. Non-observance of this term could be a reason to refuse the article for further consideration.
4.2.1.a. If the author has taken into account all the comments made by the reviewer, it is considered that the article passed the reviewing stage.
4.2.1.b. In the case of a partial or complete disregard of the comments of the reviewer, it is proved that the article has not passed the reviewing stage on which the author will get a notification.
4.3. In case of receiving a review that approves the article, the issue of the possibility of publishing an article is submitted for discussion and approve by editors. A positive review is necessary, but not sufficient for a positive decision of the editorial board.
5. About the article that passed the reviewing stage positively, the editorial board takes a collegial decision on the question of its publication.
5.1. After positive decision of the editorial board the author is notified of the acceptance of the article for publication and staging in the queue (if it is possible, the author is informed about the approximate date of publication).
5.2. If the editorial board's decision is negative, the author gets refuse on the basis of the decision of the editorial board. In this case, only the general reason for the refuse is reported, without specifying any details. The editorial board, or its individual members, do not enter into correspondence regarding the refuse.
5.3. The reason for the refusal of the editorial board can be indicated only by one of the four points: 1) The article does not correspond to the research or general thematicprinciples of the edition; 2) The article contains inaccurate or falsified data; 3) The article lacks of scientific novelty or scientific argumentation, that leads to insufficient contribution to the development of scientific knowledge; 4) The article violates one or more ethical norms. A fault is indicated by one of these four numbers.
6. The original text of the article, or the edited text in the case of making improvements according to the comments of the reviewer, s considered final. Making any changes to it after, other than proofreading (spelling correction and other minor corrections), is not allowed.
7. All the texts of the reviews are saved in electronic form and could be demonstrated to the control body of the Russian authorities, responsible for the quality of researches taken under Russian jurisdiction.
8. All publications are free of any charges.