Aim and Scope

The Russian Surgical Journal is a peer-reviewed publication that covers the main sections of surgery, oncology, traumatology and orthopedics.

The goals of the journal:

• to promote the development of medical science and to be interesting, useful, and necessary for the surgical community;
• to disseminate knowledge about effective methods of surgical treatment among surgeons and physicians of related specialties;
• to summarize scientific and practical achievements in the fields of surgery, oncology, traumatology, and orthopedics;
• to improve the scientific and practical qualifications of surgeons and physicians of related specialties.

The objectives of the journal:

• The scientific concept of the publication involves the publication of modern achievements in the fields of surgery, oncology, traumatology, and orthopedics, the results of scientific research, and the results of national and international clinical studies.
• Both domestic and foreign scientists and doctors working in the fields of surgery, oncology, traumatology, and orthopedics are invited to publish in the journal.
• The journal publishes original articles, the results of fundamental research, descriptions of clinical observations, and literature reviews on a wide range of surgical issues, as well as the results of clinical and experimental studies.

Section Policies

ПЕРЕДОВАЯ СТАТЬЯ

Open Submissions

Indexed

Peer Reviewed

ОРИГИНАЛЬНЫЕ ИССЛЕДОВАНИЯ

Open Submissions

Indexed

Peer Reviewed

МИНИМАЛЬНО ИНВАЗИВНАЯ ХИРУРГИЯ

Open Submissions

Indexed

Peer Reviewed

Publication Frequency

4 times per year

Open Access Policy

This is an open access journal. All articles are made freely available to readers immediatly upon publication.

Our open access policy is in accordance with the Budapest Open Access Initiative (BOAI) definition - it means that articles have free availability on the public internet, permitting any users to read, download, copy, distribute, print, search, or link to the full texts of these articles, crawl them for indexing, pass them as data to software, or use them for any other lawful purpose, without financial, legal, or technical barriers other than those inseparable from gaining access to the internet itself.

For more information please read BOAI statement.

Archiving

• Russian State Library (RSL)
• National Electronic-Information Consortium (NEICON)

Peer-Review

The editorial board provides independent expert evaluation (review) of manuscripts. Articles submitted to the editorial board of the Journal must comply with the profile of the Journal and the rules for submitting manuscripts by authors.

The review procedure includes the following stages:

1. Expertise of the article by the responsible secretary of the journal for compliance with the basic requirements for manuscripts. Completed within 5 days from the date of receipt of the article by the editors. All articles submitted to the editors are checked for plagiarism using the anti-plagiarism system. Manuscripts formatted without taking into account the Terms of Publication of Articles in the Russian Surgical Journal are not considered; the author is informed about the refusal to consider the manuscript due to its non-compliance with the terms.

2. External review. The Russian Surgical Journal has adopted the format of double anonymous review. The choice of two independent experts is determined by the editor-in-chief, scientific editor, and members of the editorial board/editorial council, taking into account the thematic focus of the submitted materials. Review of articles is voluntary and free of charge. Independent experts are selected from among persons who have an academic degree of at least a candidate of medical sciences. They are not in a scientific, financial, or any other relationship with the authors of the article or the editorial board of the journal.

In case of revealing a potential conflict of interest (due to competition, collaboration, or other relationships with any of the authors, companies, or other organizations related to the submitted work), the reviewer is obliged to declare it and refuse to consider the submitted manuscript.

In particular, the following cases are considered potential conflicts of interest arising during reviewing manuscripts:

- the reviewer works at the same institution as the author(s) of the manuscript;

- there is or has been a recent collaboration between the reviewer and the author(s) of the manuscript;

- the reviewer has joint publications with the author(s) published within the last 5 years;

- the reviewer has personal relationships with the author(s) of the article that interfere with an objective assessment of the manuscript.

Thus, the author or co-author of the work under review, as well as the scientific supervisors of applicants for an academic degree and employees of the department in which the author or co-authors of the article work, cannot be a reviewer. At the discretion of the authors, external review may be provided upon submission of the manuscript, which, however, does not preclude the accepted review procedure.

The review process is confidential. Reviewers are informed that manuscripts submitted for review are the intellectual property of the authors and are classified information. Reviewers are not allowed to use manuscripts for their own needs. Violation of anonymity and confidentiality is possible only in the event of a claim of unreliability or falsification of materials. Unpublished data obtained from manuscripts submitted for review cannot be used.

Reviewers are required to follow the adopted policy of the Russian Surgical Journal in terms of compliance with ethical standards when publishing articles posted on the Journal's website.

 The review is written in a standard form proposed by the editors or in free form, with mandatory coverage of the following provisions:

- relevance of the submitted article;

- scientific novelty of the research direction considered in the article;

- practical significance of the problem posed and/or the results obtained in the considered field of knowledge;

- adequacy and modernity of research methods;

- sufficiency and informativeness of the research material;

- correctness and completeness of the discussion of the results obtained;

- compliance of the conclusions with the goal and objectives of the study;

- admissibility of the volume of the manuscript as a whole and its individual elements (text, tables, illustrative material, bibliographic references);

 - adequacy, quality, and appropriateness of placing tables, illustrative material in the article and their compliance with the topic presented;

- quality of the article’s presentation: style of presentation, adequacy of terminology, and its compliance with that accepted in the field of knowledge under consideration.

A reviewer must give an objective assessment of the manuscript. Personal comments to the author(s) are unacceptable. A reviewer must express his/her opinion clearly and substantiate it. A reviewer should, whenever possible, identify relevant published works that are relevant to the topic and the manuscript under review that are not included in the bibliography to the manuscript. Any statement (observation, conclusion, or argument) that has been published previously should be accompanied by an appropriate bibliographic citation in the manuscript. Any statement in the review that some observation, conclusion, or argument in the manuscript under review has previously appeared in the literature should be accompanied by an accurate bibliographic citation. A reviewer should draw to the editor's attention any significant similarity or overlap between the manuscript under review and any other previously published work.

The final part of the review should contain substantiated conclusions about the article as a whole and a clear recommendation on the advisability of its publication in the journal or the need for its revision.

In case of a negative assessment of the manuscript as a whole (recommendation on the inadvisability of publication), the reviewer must substantiate his/her conclusions. If the manuscript does not meet one or more criteria, the reviewer indicates in the review the need to revise the article and gives recommendations to the author on how to improve the article (indicating the inaccuracies and errors made by the author).

Authors are given the opportunity to familiarize themselves with the text of the review. When transferring expert opinions to authors, the reviewers' data is not indicated. The review period is no more than 3 weeks.

3. The editorial board evaluates articles that are being prepared for publication in the next issue of the journal. The editorial board approves the list of articles to be published in the current issue of the journal. The editorial board has the right to reject an article if there are questions about some aspects of the article and send it for additional review. The editorial board selects an expert, and a member of the editorial board or editorial council may be appointed as a candidate. The decision to publish an article that has received a positive evaluation from experts is made by the editorial board. The content of a journal issue is approved by the editor-in-chief and/or his deputy and/or the appointed editor-in-chief of this issue after preparing the technical layout of the issue before submitting it to the printing house. The editor-in-chief and/or his deputy appoints the editor-in-chief of the issue.

The procedure for informing authors about the review results. Based on the review results, the article may either be rejected, sent back to the authors for revision, or accepted for publication.

 - upon receipt of a positive conclusion from the reviewers, the priority level for each article is individually determined, in accordance with which the publication dates are set. In some cases (for example, a narrowly focused work), the publication of the article may be postponed until the formation of the thematic issue.

- upon receipt of a negative review from the reviewers, the authors are sent copies of the reviews and a letter with a reasoned refusal to publish the manuscript. In case of disagreement in the opinions of independent experts, the editorial board may decide to appoint an additional review of the manuscript, based on the results of which the final decision on publication is made. - if the experts' conclusions contain comments or recommendations for revision of the article, copies of the reviews with the comments of the reviewer and the editor are sent to the authors. The date of receipt of the primary version of the manuscript is considered the date of receipt of the article.

Articles with corrections must be returned by the authors to the editorial board no later than 4 weeks after receipt, together with a cover letter response to the reviewer. Returning an article at a later date affects the date of its publication. After revision, the article is reviewed again, and the decision on the possibility of publication is made by the members of the editorial board. In case of disagreement with the opinion of the reviewers, the authors have the right to provide a reasoned response to the editorial board of the journal and/or request a second review. The article can be sent for additional consideration to an independent external expert or members of the editorial board/editorial council. Also, in case of disagreement with the opinion of the reviewers, the authors can withdraw the article, which must be notified to the editorial board of the Journal. Authors of articles that have received a negative opinion from experts, in case of revision of the manuscripts, have the right to re-submit and review the articles in a general order.

The following will not be accepted for publication:

- articles that do not meet the journal's requirements for manuscripts; if the authors refuse to technically revise the manuscript, the article may be rejected without the external review procedure.

- articles whose authors do not implement the reviewers' comments without providing a reasoned response. The editors of the journal store reviews for five years. The editors do not store manuscripts that have not been accepted for publication.

Manuscripts accepted for publication are not returned. Upon receipt of a corresponding request by the editors of the publication, copies of reviews are sent to the Ministry of Education and Science of the Russian Federation.

Publishing Ethics

1. Basic principles of publication ethics:

1.1. Compliance with editorial ethical standards. The editorial board of the journal is guided by the principles of scientificity, objectivity, professionalism, and impartiality in its activities.

1.2. Responsibility for compliance with ethical standards. Researchers, authors, editors, reviewers, and publishers have ethical obligations regarding the publication and dissemination of the results of scientific research.

1.3. Standards of communication with authors. Interaction with authors is based on the principles of fairness, politeness, objectivity, honesty, and transparency.

1.4. Availability of a peer review institution. All content of the journal, except for advertising and editorial materials clearly marked as such, undergoes mandatory double-blind peer review by independent experts.

1.5. Access to publications. The journal guarantees access to publications, ensuring the storage of materials in the leading libraries and repositories of scientific information of the Russian Federation.

1.6. Information openness. The publication's website contains provisions on publication ethics and reviewing, a clearly formulated policy of the journal, rules for submitting manuscripts, instructions for authors, and information on the availability of materials (free access). The ISSN and address of the publisher are indicated.

1.7. Information on the provision or absence of paid services. All information on paid services, if any, is clearly stated and available on the journal's website, approved by the editor-in-chief. If the journal does not provide paid services, this is also indicated on the publication's website.

1.8. Compliance with ethical criteria for authorship. An author is only a person who has significantly participated in writing the work, in developing its concept, in scientific design, collection of material, analysis, and interpretation. The consent of all authors for publication is mandatory. All co-authors must meet these criteria.

 1.9. Coordination of the final text of the article with the author. Publication of an article under the author's name implies the emergence of copyright. Publication of text not agreed upon with the author, as well as inclusion of third parties as co-authors, is a violation of copyright.

 1.10. Compliance with deadlines for editorial decision-making. Editorial decisions are made within limited timeframes and are set out in a clear and constructive form on the publication's website in the instructions for authors.

1.11. Interaction with scientific and professional associations. The editors strive to interact with professional scientific associations and industry communities in order to ensure the high quality of the work of scientists.

1.12. Prevention and correction of ethical violations. It is the duty of scientific editors to prevent situations where authors, reviewers, or other entities involved in the production of scientific texts engage in unethical behavior. Also, to ensure the removal of unscrupulous publications from the scientific space. They should also cooperate with the ethics council and scientific associations.

1.13. Informing about conflicts of interest. Editors encourage authors to disclose relationships with industrial and financial organizations that could lead to a conflict of interest. All sources of funding must be indicated by the authors in the body of the article.

2. Duties and responsibilities of the editorial board and the editorial board of the journal “Russian Surgical Journal”

2.1. The editorial board of the journal is an advisory body consisting of leading scientists and individuals with extensive experience, representatives of public organizations. It assists the editorial board in determining the mission, policy, and subject of the journal, discusses long-term and annual plans for the journal, and promotes the development and improvement of the journal.

2.2. The editorial board of the journal is a permanent governing body of the journal, consisting of leading scientists in various scientific specialties who determine the current editorial policy of the journal review and approve the content of the next issues of the journal. They also accept and prepare for publication manuscripts submitted by authors. These are formatted in accordance with the rules of the journal.

2.3. The Editorial Board of the Journal in its activities:

— is guided by the Law of the Russian Federation of December 27, 1991, N 2124-I “About the media,” the provisions of Chapter 70 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation “Copyright” and international standards for authors (responsible research publication international standards for authors), the policy of the Journal;

 — follows the principles and procedures that facilitate the fulfillment of ethical responsibilities by editors, reviewers, and authors of the journal in accordance with these requirements;

— promotes good research practice and implements industry standards in order to improve ethical guidelines and procedures for the removal and correction of errors;

— undertakes, in the event of objective claims, complaints, or conflict situations, all measures within its power to protect the party whose rights have been infringed, to substantiate its position, if necessary, publish a corrected version, and apologize to the authors, readers, and the scientific community;

 — ensures peer review (expert assessment) of materials solely on scientific grounds by an uninterested, independent, competent specialist in the field of research being conducted through double-blind peer review;

— makes decisions solely on the basis of the scientific quality of articles and is responsible for its decisions;

— ensures that authors are not pressured to cite certain publications for non-scientific reasons; — ensures the confidentiality of the authors' material and informs reviewers of the need to maintain such confidentiality during the peer review process;

— maintains the confidentiality of the personal data of reviewers. However, if reviewers wish to disclose their names, they are not prohibited from doing so;

 — makes decisions to refuse publication of an article or to retract or amend an already published article if multiple unfair plagiarisms, violations of publication ethics, or honest errors of the authors and the author’s failure to provide reasonable objections are discovered;

— responds to all allegations or suspicions of misconduct in relation to a published article, coming from readers, reviewers, or other editors;

— follows a policy of openness about financial and non-financial conflicts of interest and requires authors and reviewers to provide information about possible conflicts of interest;

— does not use data obtained from manuscripts submitted for review without the written consent of the authors;

— encourages scientific debate on the pages of the journal.

2.4. The editorial board is responsible for all published materials and takes measures to ensure the high quality and reliability of published materials;

2.5. Unpublished data obtained from manuscripts submitted for consideration should not be used for personal purposes or disclosed to third parties without the written consent of the author. Information or ideas obtained during editing and associated with possible advantages must be kept confidential and not used for personal gain.

2.6. The editor-in-chief of the journal organizes the activities of the editorial board.

2.7. The editor-in-chief, together with the editorial board and/or council, develops an effective policy for the journal and mechanisms for its implementation, including in terms of:

— ensuring the quality of published materials;

— ensuring the independence of the editorial board and/or council;

— ensuring publication ethics standards and confidentiality requirements;

— interacting with authors and monitoring authors' compliance with publication ethics;

— ensuring transparency and honesty when considering issues regarding the publication of articles;

— ensuring scientific review of articles; resolving appeals and complaints.

2.8. Editor-in-Chief:

— ensures dissemination of information about the journal's policy (to authors, readers, and reviewers);

— takes all possible reasonable steps to ensure high quality and high scientific level of published material and to maintain internal consistency of the journal.

— defines the relationship between the author, the editorial board and/or council, as well as other participants in contractual relations

— is responsible for making decisions on the size and content of manuscripts.

— undertakes to publish corrections, clarifications, and retract unscrupulous articles;

— respects the right to confidentiality and privacy of personal information (for research participants, authors, and reviewers);

— protects intellectual property and copyright;

— ensures timely release of journal editions.

2.9. In their work, the Editor-in-Chief undertakes to:

— continually improve the journal;

— adhere to the principle of freedom of opinion;

— strive to meet the needs of the readers and authors of the journal;

— exclude the influence of business or political interests on decisions on the publication of materials;

— make decisions on the publication of materials, guided by the following main criteria: compliance of the manuscript with the subject of the journal, relevance, novelty, and scientific significance of the submitted article, clarity of presentation, reliability of the results, and completeness of the conclusions.

The quality of the research and its relevance are the basis for the decision on publication.

— take all reasonable measures to protect the confidentiality of personal information;

— take into account the recommendations of the reviewers when making the final decision on the publication of the article.

Responsibility for the decision on publication lies entirely with the editorial board of the journal;

 — justify their decision in the event of acceptance or rejection of the article;

 — provide the author of the peer-reviewed material with the opportunity to justify their research position;

 — if the composition of the editorial board changes, do not cancel the decision of the previous composition on the publication of the material.

2.10. The editor-in-chief has the exclusive right to accept or reject a manuscript for publication.

2.11. A manuscript may be rejected by the editor-in-chief at the stage preceding peer review if there is a compelling reason for this (the article is obviously of low scientific quality; the article was previously published in another publication; the submitted materials reveal a fundamental contradiction to the ethical principles adhered to by the journal).

2.12. The Editor-in-Chief accepts an article for publication based on his/her conviction that it meets the requirements of the journal. The Editor-in-Chief may consult with other members of the editorial board, members of the editorial board, and reviewers in the process of making a decision on the publication of an article. He/she promotes the principle of “blind” review of articles.

2.13. The Editor-in-Chief interacts with authors on the principles of fairness, politeness, objectivity, honesty, transparency and bears personal responsibility for the decision to accept or reject the manuscript of the article submitted to the editors.

2.14. The Editor-in-Chief must, within 2 months from the date of registration of the manuscript, decide on the fate of the received manuscript.

2.15. The decision to accept an article is based solely on an assessment of the relevance, originality (novelty), significance, reliability, consistency, and clarity of the presentation of the material, and the presence of the reviewers' opinion.

2.16. The editor-in-chief of the journal is responsible for the publication of the author's works, which requires that the following fundamental principles be followed when making a decision on publication:

- reliability of the presented data and scientific significance of the work in question;

- objectivity of the assessment of the scientific, methodological, and practical basis of the study, its compliance with the current level of development of the field of knowledge of which the expert is a representative;

- impartiality of the assessment of the intellectual content of manuscripts regardless of the origin, citizenship, social status, views, and preferences of the authors;

 - professionalism - not to allow information to be published if there are sufficient grounds to believe that it is plagiarism;

 - maintaining the confidentiality of the author's ideas, research results, conclusions, and practical recommendations until the publication of the article.

2.17. The editor-in-chief, together with the publisher, shall not leave unanswered claims concerning the reviewed manuscripts or published materials, and in the event of a conflict situation, take all necessary measures to restore violated rights.

2.18. The editor-in-chief together with the founder shall:

 — ensure information openness of the journal by publishing on the official website of the journal: information about the editorial board and/or council of the journal, conditions for publication of articles, rules for article formatting, rules for reviewing articles, regulations on publication ethics.

The publisher shall ensure open access to all articles published in the journal on the journal's website;

 — ensure the posting on the official website of complete and comprehensive information about the paid services of the journal or the absence thereof;

— ensure open access to full-text files of all archival and current issues of the journal and distribution of publications in electronic libraries by publishing articles on the official website of the journal, posting metadata and full texts of articles on the website of the scientific electronic library – «elibrary».

2.19. General Obligations and Responsibilities of Editors

2.20. An editor is a representative of a scientific journal or publishing house who prepares materials for publication and communicates with authors and readers of scientific publications.

2.21. Editors are responsible for everything that is published in their journal.

This means that editors must:

— ensure that the interests of readers and authors are respected;

— promote the development and improvement of the journal;

— take all necessary measures to ensure the high quality of published materials;

— protect freedom of opinion;

— prevent commercial interests from compromising intellectual and ethical standards;

— prevent, where possible, conflicts of interest between participants in the publication process and, if necessary, resolve the conflict in accordance with the interests of the scientific community;

 — be prepared to publish corrections, clarifications, retractions (retract articles), and apologies when necessary.

All submitted manuscripts must be objectively assessed by the editor for their scientific merit without any commercial influence.

2.22. The editor is responsible for making decisions about publication.

The reliability of the work under consideration and its scientific significance should always form the basis for the decision to publish.

2.23. Editors should ensure that the materials they publish comply with international standards of scientific and publication ethics.

2.24. If there is a conflict of interest between the editor and the author of the article, the article should be transferred to another editor.

2.25. The editor submits for review all incoming manuscripts that are not rejected for various reasons at the first stage of consideration, selecting reviewers from among the most competent specialists in the subject of the article.

2.26. Editors should keep the names of reviewers confidential and not disclose the names of authors to reviewers.

2.27. Editors should guarantee the high quality of materials published in the journal and their substantive integrity, and also publish corrections, clarifications, and apologies in cases where such a need arises.

2.28. The editor should evaluate manuscripts objectively and fairly for their intellectual content without discrimination, regardless of the geographical origin, citizenship, ethnicity, views, beliefs, and preferences of the authors.

2.29. The Editor and members of the Editorial Board of the Journal have an obligation not to disclose information about an accepted manuscript to anyone except the authors, reviewers, scientific advisors, and the Publisher unless necessary.

Unpublished data obtained from submitted manuscripts must not be used in personal research without the written consent of the author.

2.30. Information or ideas obtained through peer review and associated with possible advantages must be kept confidential and not used for personal advantage.

2.31. An editor who has presented compelling evidence that the statements or conclusions of a publication are erroneous should notify the publisher so that corrections, retractions, expressions of concern, or other appropriate statements can be promptly made.

2.32. The editor, in conjunction with the publisher, will take appropriate response measures to ethical complaints concerning manuscripts or published materials that have been reviewed. Such measures generally include communication with the authors of the manuscript and the rationale for the complaint or claim, but may also include communication with the relevant organizations and research centers.

2.33. The editor should handle all complaints and controversies in accordance with the policies of the learned society, regardless of when publication was accepted, and should give the author an opportunity to respond to any complaints and substantiate any controversies. All complaints should be investigated. All documentation related to the complaint should be retained.

2.34. Reviewers, scientific advisors, and the editor should recuse themselves from considering manuscripts in case of conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other interactions and relationships with the authors, companies, and, possibly, other organizations connected with the manuscript.

3. ETHICAL STANDARDS FOR REVIEWING SCIENTIFIC PUBLICATIONS

3.1. All articles and materials published in the journal, except for editorial materials, undergo mandatory peer review, organized according to the principles of open, blind, or double-blind peer review.

3.2. Peer review is defined as receiving consultation or advice on individual manuscripts from expert reviewers in the given field. Peer review assists the editor in making a decision on publication and, through appropriate interaction with the author, may also assist the author in improving the quality of the work.

3.3. The reviewer should conduct an expert assessment of the article in accordance with the “organization and procedure for peer review” and in the interests of the scientific community and society as a whole.

3.4. Considering peer review as the most important link in ensuring the exchange of scientific information, the editors put forward requirements to reviewers for compliance with ethical standards:

— competence (sufficient knowledge of the subject of the study);

— confidentiality of review — do not disclose information or ideas obtained through review; do not allow them to be used for personal gain; do not disclose any details of the manuscript or review of the submitted manuscript to anyone except the editor;

— objectivity — evaluate the manuscript comprehensively, without allowing personal criticism of the author; promptly declare any potential conflict of interest between the reviewer and the work under review, its authors, or the organization funding the study;

— constructive criticism (preparing reviews that can help authors improve their manuscript); — impartiality and honesty — evaluate the intellectual content of the manuscript regardless of the origin, citizenship, or views of its author;

— clarity and substantiation of expression of one's opinion; adherence to the principle of acknowledgment of primary sources;

 — indicate publications on the topic of the submitted manuscript that are not referenced in the article under review;

— draw the editor's attention to any substantial similarity or coincidence between the manuscript under consideration and any other publication known to him or her;

— efficiency (compliance with deadlines for completing expert assessments and preparing reviews).

3.5. Reviewers should:

— respond promptly to an invitation to review, particularly if declined;

— agree to review a manuscript only if they are confident that they will be able to complete the review within the proposed or mutually agreed time frame, notifying the journal promptly if they need an extension;

 — advise the journal if circumstances arise that will prevent them from completing the review in a timely manner, giving a clear estimate of the time it will take them to complete the review unless the journal assigns another reviewer in their place;

— state this explicitly if they lack sufficient knowledge of the subject matter;

— notify the journal as soon as possible if they discover that they do not have sufficient knowledge to evaluate all aspects of the manuscript, rather than waiting until the review submission date, as this will unduly delay the review process;

 — declare all potential conflicts of interest (e.g., personal, financial, intellectual, professional, political, or religious);

 — decline to review if they feel they cannot provide an impartial and fair assessment;

— if they agree to review, reviewers should prepare objective and constructive reviews that can help authors improve their manuscript;

— be specific in their criticism and support their general conclusions with strong evidence and relevant references;

— refrain from making derogatory personal comments or unfounded accusations;

— if a reviewer has an inkling based on the subject matter or other evidence that the author of the article under review may be the author, the reviewer may contact the author directly only with the prior permission of the editorial board and/or council;

— promptly notify the journal if they discover errors in the work, if reviewers have ethical concerns, become aware of substantial similarities between the manuscript and another document, or suspect that misconduct has occurred during the research or submission of the manuscript to the journal; at the same time, reviewers should keep their concerns confidential and not investigate the matter further unless the journal itself asks for their assistance;

— not involve anyone else in the preparation of the review, including their assistants, without obtaining the consent of the journal.

4. Ethical standards for authors of scientific publications

4.1. An author is only a person who has significantly participated in writing the work, in developing its concept, collecting data, and analyzing and interpreting it.

4.2. Co-authors are all persons who took part in the research and creation of the manuscript and are responsible for its content. Responsibility for the completeness of the presentation of the composition of the author's team and the approval of all changes made to the text of the manuscript as a result of its review and editing lies with the person (author).

He or she submitted the manuscript to the editors.

4.3. Authors must objectively and honestly indicate the contribution of each of them to the work, not allowing false information about authorship. Authors undertake to acknowledge the contribution of persons involved in or who influenced the research or publication, if any. Ensure that only those persons who meet the authorship criteria (i.e., made a significant contribution to the work) are listed as authors in the work, and that researchers deserving of authorship are not excluded from the list of authors.

4.4. The authors of the article own all copyrights to the articles. The author transfers the rights to use the article to the journal publisher on the basis of a non-exclusive license while retaining exclusive rights (including the right to publish the article in other publications, but only after its first publication in the journal).

4.5. Authors submitting their materials for publication in the journal must adhere to the following principles:

— originality of the research with conclusions that contribute to the growth of scientific knowledge;

— provision of error-free data, reliable results of the work performed, the absence of false statements;

— objective discussion of the significance of the research;

— inadmissibility of personal, critical, or disparaging remarks and accusations against other researchers; complete exclusion of plagiarism;

— scientific integrity;

— recognition of the contribution of others; mandatory presence of bibliographic references to all external sources of information; all publications essential to the given article (including his own previously published articles and scientific materials); avoidance of self-plagiarism (repeated, duplicate publication).

The consent of all authors for publication is mandatory.

4.6. Researchers have a responsibility to:

— present new, significant results of their work in the context of previous research;

— ensure that their publications are fair, clear, accurate, complete, and balanced;

— reflect the use of scientific works of other researchers, their predecessors, and colleagues appropriately: fully and balanced, regardless of whether they support the hypotheses and interpretations of the author of the publication or not, and correctly cite their work.

 4.7. Authors must not:

— allow the presentation of material that is misleading to readers, selective or ambiguous presentation of facts;

— paraphrase, partially copy their/others' work, or quote text without providing references. Plagiarism in all its forms is unacceptable;

— copy references from other publications to works with which they themselves have not read; — publish the same studies in several journals.

4.8. Information obtained privately, such as through conversation, correspondence, or discussion with third parties, must not be used or reported without explicit written permission from the source.

Information obtained through confidential processes, such as manuscript evaluation or grant applications, must not be used without explicit written permission from the author of the work involving the confidential process.

4.9. Authors must:

— ensure that the article is original and has not been previously published or simultaneously submitted for consideration to another editorial board;

— present results honestly and without fabrication, falsification, or unfair manipulation of data; plagiarism is not allowed;

— avoid using data not intended for open publication;

— comply with international standards and Russian copyright legislation.

— accurately and neatly format citations and references to other works. In all possible cases, a reference to the original source must be provided;

— indicate the authorship of data, text, figures, and ideas that the author obtained from other sources. Direct citations from the works of other researchers must be set off by quotation marks and an appropriate reference;

— include in the article references only to those works that the authors themselves have read.

4.10. The published research must be of high quality and carefully carried out, and all data presented in the article must be reliable, objective, and not falsified. The authors bear collective responsibility for all data provided in the article (facts, results, conclusions, theories, hypotheses, etc.) within the framework of the relevant current legislation of the Russian Federation.

 4.11. The authors must guarantee that the published research was conducted in accordance with ethical and legal standards. Whenever individuals are involved in experiments, the authors are required to obtain the necessary approvals, licenses, and registrations prior to the commencement of the study. They must also adhere to the current legislation and the ethical guidelines of the British Educational Research Association, the international standards for responsible research publication for authors, and the international recommendations for the conduct of biomedical research involving animals (developed and adopted by the International Council of Medical Scientific Societies (CIOMS).

4.12. Authors are required to:

— disclose all sources of research funding, including direct and indirect financial support, provision of equipment or materials, and other types of support;

— provide information on the extent of the sponsor's involvement in the project. Research sponsors should not have the right to veto publication of results that are negative for their products or developments;

— disclose any significant conflicts of interest that may influence the results or interpretation of their manuscript;

 — report the absence or presence of conflicts of interest with the publisher, sponsor, co-author, printing house, etc., if any;

 — disclose in their manuscripts financial or other existing conflicts of interest that may be perceived as influencing the results or conclusions presented in the work;

— notify the editorial board and/or council if the data they propose for publication have been previously published elsewhere or if any interpretations of these data have been sent to other publishers.

In this case, the authors must provide copies of such publications or works submitted for consideration to other journals; inform the editorial board of the journal about all their works and the works of their co-authors that intersect in subject with the article submitted to the editors and are under consideration in other publications.

4.13. Manuscript layouts must be submitted to the editors in accordance with the Rules for Manuscript Format.

4.14. Authors must notify the editors as soon as possible if they discover any inaccuracies, errors, or signs of violation of publication ethics.

4.15. Notify the editor if they discover an error in any work submitted for publication, accepted for publication, or already published.

4.16. Cooperate with editors if revisions or shortening of the work are necessary, including after its publication.

4.17. Respond to reviewer questions professionally and promptly, and provide necessary clarifications and additional information.

4.18. Notify the editor if they decline to review their work or prefer not to respond to reviewer comments after receiving conditional consent for publication.

4.19. Respond appropriately to comments after publication.

4.20. Researchers and authors have ethical obligations regarding the publication and dissemination of the results of scientific research.

4.21. Authors take full responsibility for the opinion expressed in the article and the settlement of all disputes arising from the use of any author's materials in the manuscript without appropriate permission.

Founder

• Almazov National Medical Research Center of the Ministry of Health of the Russian Federation

Author fees

Publication in “Russian Surgical Journal" is free of charge for all the authors.

The journal doesn't have any Article processing charges.

The journal doesn't have any Article submission charges.

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

“Russian Surgical Journal" 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

The editorial board of the “Russian Surgical Journal" allows authors to post the manuscript as a preprint before submission for review and to archive independently their articles in disciplinary and institutional repositories.

Preprints

The editorial board of the “Russian Surgical Journal" encourages uploading preprints on preprint servers. The Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) defines a preprint as 'a scholarly manuscript posted by the author(s) in an openly accessible platform, usually before or in parallel with the peer review process.' 

A preprint publication shall not be considered duplicate publication nor shall it influence the editor's decision to publish it in the “Russian Surgical Journal".

The author must notify the editorial board of the “Russian Surgical Journal" about the posted preprint at submission of the manuscript for review, furnishing a link to the preprint with its DOI identifier and the dissemination terms and conditions.

It is the author’s responsibility to add a link to the published manuscript in the preprint record. The link must contain the DOI and the URL of the article published on the journal's website. The original preprint should not be modified based on the reviewer’s and editor’s comments. The preprint should not be replaced with the text of the published article.

Do not delete the preprint text.

Manuscripts Accepted for Publication

The editorial board of the “Russian Surgical Journal" allows manuscripts that have been reviewed and are accepted for publication to be archived independently.

 This version of the manuscript may be disseminated through:

-   personal website or blog;

-   institutional repository;

-   disciplinary repository;

-   direct interactions with faculty or students by providing this version of the manuscript for personal use.

The text of the manuscript should contain the author’s clarifications about its status and information about the planned publication.

Example: The ARTICLE TITLE has been reviewed, accepted for publication, and will be published in 2021 (3) of the “Russian Surgical Journal".

Once the final version of the manuscript is published, it is the author’s responsibility to add a link to the published article to the publication record. The posted text should not be modified based on the reviewer’s and editor’s comments. Do not replace the text of the posted manuscript. Do not delete the text of the posted manuscript.

Final Versions of Manuscripts

The editorial board of the “Russian Surgical Journal" allows manuscripts that have been peer-reviewed, accepted for publication, edited and ready for publication (proofread and typeset) to be archived independently.

 This version of the manuscript may be disseminated through:

-   personal website or blog;

-   institutional repository;

-   disciplinary repository;

-   direct interactions with faculty or students by providing this version of the manuscript for personal use.

 Once the final version of the manuscript is published, it is the author’s responsibility to add a link to the published article to the publication record. The posted text should not be modified based on the reviewer’s and editor’s comments. Do not replace the text of the posted manuscript. Do not delete the text of the posted manuscript.

Revenue Sources

The publication of the journal is financed by the funds of the parent organization, at the expense of the publisher, publication of advertising materials, publication of reprints.