Preview

Rational Pharmacotherapy in Cardiology

Advanced search

Editorial Policies

Focus and Scope

The primary goals of the Journal are consolidation of information on scientific and practical achievements in pharmacotherapy and prevention of cardiovascular diseases and continuing education of cardiologists and internists.

The scientific concept of the edition suggests the publication of information on current achievements in cardiology, the results of national and international clinical trials.

The Journal publishes original articles on the results of clinical trials designed to study the effectiveness and safety of drugs, analysis of clinical practice and its compliance with national and international recommendations, expert s’ opinions on a wide range of cardiology issues, associated conditions and clinical pharmacology. There is a heading “Preventive cardiology and public health” in the Journal to stimulate research interest in this highly demanded area. Memories of the outstanding people in medicine including cardiology, which are of great interest to historians of medicine, are published in "Our Mentors” heading.

The Editors pay much attention to constructive reviewing and editing manuscripts, considering it as an important educational mission. Best articles are published in Russian and English languages, making the results of Russian studies accessible to foreign colleagues. In the long term, while improving the quality of materials, most of manuscripts are planned to be translated into English, until making the Journal completely bilingual.

 

Section Policies

EDITORIAL
Unchecked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Unchecked Peer Reviewed
ORIGINAL STUDIES
Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed
PREVENTIVE CARDIOLOGY AND PUBLIC HEALTH
Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed
ASSOCIATED PROBLEMS OF CARDIOLOGY
Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed
ANALYSIS OF CLINICAL PRACTICE
Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed
NOTES FROM PRACTICE
Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed
INNOVATIVE CARDIOLOGY
Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed
POINT OF VIEW
Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed
EXPERIMENTAL STUDIES
Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed
CURRENT QUESTIONS OF CLINICAL PHARMACOLOGY
Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed
THERAPY GUIDELINES
Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed
FORUMS
Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed
LETTER TO EDITORS
Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed
ANNIVERSARIES
Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed
JUBILEE
Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed
OUR MENTORS
Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed
OBITUARY
Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed
INFORMATION
Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed
ASSOCIATED PROBLEMS OF CARDIOLOGY
Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed
 

Open Access Policy

"Rational Pharmacotherapy in Cardiology"  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

Editorial Policies and Procedures for review of manuscripts in the Journal "Rational Pharmacotherapy in Cardiology"

The main purpose of the review is to ensure high quality of published materials. First of all, to validate the decision of a manuscript acceptance for publication (with minimal or substantial corrections) or the need for publication rejection.

To increase the objectivity the principle of a "double-blind peer review" is used: the authors do not know who the reviewer is and the reviewer does not know who the authors are, including their place of work or the institution(s) where the manuscript comes from.

Editorial Board considers important educational role of reviewing and welcomes constructive criticism of the reviewer aimed to help the authors to improve the quality of submitted scientific material.

Editorial Board recommends the reviewer when analyzing the manuscripts to adhere to the international rules of publication of biomedical research (Uniform Requirements for Manuscripts Submitted to Biomedical Journals - http://www.rpcardio.ru/authors/unifiedreq.php) and standards of publication of randomized clinical trials (CONSORT Statement - http://www.rpcardio.ru/authors/consort.php).

The reviewer is obliged to keep confidentiality when working with the submitted manuscript.

Manuscripts should be sent in electronic form to the Editorial office E-mail: otsec@sticom.ru. Contact information of the Editorial office: phone +7 (499) 553 68 10. In a covering letter authors should ensure that the manuscripts have not been submitted to other journals, placed on the Internet, and previously published. The manuscript comes to the Executive Editor of the Journal, who checks it for the compliance with the Requirements for Submission and Publication (http://www.rpcardio.com/author.php). Attention is drawn to the availability of author’s contact details, completeness of author’s information, summary in Russian, and potential conflicts of interest disclosure. Manuscripts sent with violation of the Requirements of Submission will not be accepted for consideration by the Journal Editors.

Submitted manuscript is registered in an electronic database - the date of receipt and a serial number are recorded. The file is assigned a name, including: (1) the abbreviated name of the Journal, (2) the year of receiving, (3) a serial number, (4) the name of the first author, (5) keyword of the manuscript title (example: RPC_2014_424_Ostroumova_EchoCG). The date of receipt is entered directly on the first page of authorial manuscript.

Then the Executive Editor presents the manuscript to the Editor-in-Chief (Deputy Editor) to define the correspondence of the manuscript to the Journal profile and its subject matter. Editor-in-Chief (Deputy Editor) nominates external reviewer, an expert in this scientific area and the Executive Editor arranges with the nominated reviewer review performance.

Executive Editor provides the "blindness" of the manuscript: (1) removes authors' names and names of institutions where they work from the cover page, (2) deletes the name of the first author from the file name, (3) deletes data from the file property, enabling to identity the authors,. Thus, the reviewer will not be able to learn whose manuscript and from which institution he reviews. Only in this way the manuscript is sent to the reviewer by email. Along with the manuscript the following documents are sent to the reviewer: (1) policy letter "Information for reviewers", (2) special form to fill in "Reviewer’s report on the manuscript submitted for publication", (3) an example of such completed form, (4) the form for the potential conflicts of interest disclosure. These documents can also be found on the Journal’s website in the section "For reviewers" (links for uploading are below).

The reviewer’s name and manuscript sent date for review are recorded by the Executive Editor in the already mentioned electronic database.

A review is formalized in a free style with the obligatory conclusion about a significance of criticisms and potential for the manuscript publishing. In most cases a manuscript is reviewed by one expert. If necessary (for example, the interdisciplinary subject of the manuscript), the manuscript is sent for the second review. After receiving the reviews Editor-in-Chief (Deputy Editor) re-examines the manuscript and decides on publication. The authors are always informed about the Editor-in-Chief’s (Deputy Editor) decision, reviewer comments and (if necessary) they are requested to send a corrected version of the manuscript. To achieve maximum objectivity reviewer comments are sent to authors anonymously.

Reviews are stored in the Journal Editorial office and in the Publishing house at least 5 years and made available upon request to the Ministry of Education and Science of the Russian Federation.

After receiving the revised version of the manuscript, it is checked on plagiarism and undergoes scientific, literary and technical editing, proofreading. In case of the author’s incomplete consideration of reviewer’s comments, the Editorial Board at its own discretion conducts an independent scientific editing, revises the manuscript, or can refuse the publication. Scientific editing, reduction and correction of the manuscript, changing the design of graphics, drawings and tables are intended to bring the material into conformity with the standards of the Journal. In this case the meaning of the provided information can not be changed.

In case of refusal to publish the manuscript the reasoned response is sent obligatory to the authors, along with the comments from the reviewers.

Annual report on the work of the Editorial Board of "Rational Pharmacotherapy in Cardiology", which includes a list of reviewers is published in the first issue (number) of the year following the reporting one.

 

Editor-in-Chief of the Journal "Rational Pharmacotherapy in Cardiology"

Corresponding Member of the

Russian Academy of Sciences,

Professor                                                                                                             Boytsov S.A.

 

Applications:

1. Policy letter "Information for reviewers"

2. The form for filling in "Reviewer’s report on the manuscript submitted for publication"

3. An example of such completed form

4. The form for the potential conflicts of interest disclosure

 

Indexation

Articles in "Rational Pharmacotherapy in Cardiology" 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).
  • Scopus
  • 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.
  • ESCI (Web of Science Core Collection)
  • EMBASE
  • DOAJ
  • Index Copernicus
  • Cyberleninka

 

Publishing Ethics

The Publication Ethics and Publication Malpractice Statement of the journal “Rational Pharmacotherapy in Cardiology” are based on the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) Code of Conduct guidelines available at www.publicationethics.org and requirements for peer-reviewed medical journals (http://health.elsevier.ru/attachments/editor/file/ethical_code_final.pdf), elaborated by the Elsevier Publishing House (in accordance with international ethical rules of scientific publications).

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, and the publisher for the journal “Rational Pharmacotherapy in Cardiology”.

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 programs record «the minutes of science» and we recognize 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 decisionThe Editor of a learned “Rational Pharmacotherapy in Cardiology” is solely and independently responsible for deciding which of the articles submitted to the journal should be published. 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 “Rational Pharmacotherapy in Cardiology” 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 in making this decision.

2.2. Fair playAn 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 “Rational Pharmacotherapy in Cardiology” 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 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 investigationsAn editor should take reasonably responsive measures when ethical complaints have been presented concerning a submitted manuscript or published paper, in conjunction with the publisher. 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 DecisionsPeer 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 “Rational Pharmacotherapy in Cardiology” 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 “Rational Pharmacotherapy in Cardiology” 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

5.1. Publisher should adopt policies and procedures that support editors, reviewers and authors of “Rational Pharmacotherapy in Cardiology” 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 “Rational Pharmacotherapy in Cardiology” 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 specialized legal review and counsel if necessary.

 

Founder

  • National Medical Research Center for Preventive Medicine (Moscow) and Individual Persons

 

Author fees

Publication in "Rational Pharmacotherapy in Cardiology" is free of charge for all the authors.

The journal doesn't have any Arcticle 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

"Rational Pharmacotherapy in Cardiology" 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 "Rational Pharmacotherapy in Cardiology", 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 "Rational Pharmacotherapy in Cardiology" 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)

Preprint - In the context of Open Access, a preprint is a draft of an academic article or other publication before it has been submitted for peer-review or other quality assurance procedure as part of the publication process. Preprints cover initial and successive drafts of articles, working papers or draft conference papers.

Postprint - The final version of an academic article or other publication - after it has been peer-reviewed and revised into its final form by the author. As a general term this covers both the author's final version and the version as published, with formatting and copy-editing changes in place.