Regional Clinical Center of Miners Health Protection



The articles for reviewing are sent by e-mail or by post. A reviewer is chosen by the editorial office among the members of the editorial board, other reputable Russian and foreign scientists including the authors of the journal “Polytrauma”. After expressing his/her agreement for article reviewing, the reviewer receives materials for evaluation. Then the reviewer acts in accordance with the technical instructions at

The editorial office appeals reviewers, who participate in evaluation of articles offered for publication in the journal Polytrauma, to adhere to the Code of ethics for scientific publications (, the Committee of ethics of scientific publications, Moscow, Russia) and the principles declared in COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers and developed by Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).

1. According to the stated order, all scientific articles admitted to the journal editorial office pass obligate reviewing. Articles may be accompanied by a review of a specialist in article specialization. It does not cancel expert appreciation procedure that is organized in the following order.

2. The editor-in-chief of the journal determines the article correspondence to the journal’s specialization, to the requirements for the appearance, appreciates the completeness of the represented review and directs the article for the first consideration to one of the deputy chief editors who examines the scientific context of a manuscript. Further, if required, an article is sent for reviewing to one of the members of the editorial board or to an external reviewer – specialist, doctor or candidate of science who has a scientific specialization, which is the nearest to theme of article.

3. The reviewing terms are determined by the editor-in-chief in each individual case, taking into account the creating conditions for the maximally operative publication of the article.

4. The review represents the thorough analysis of the scientific and methodic advantages and disadvantages of the articles with mandatory interpretation of the following conditions:

4.1. Actuality of submitted article.

4.2. Scientific novelty of study direction considered in article.

4.3. The significance of definition of a problem or received results for further development of theory and practice in reviewed sphere.

4.4. Adequacy and modernity of research methods. Correspondence of statement of the article materials to the modern methodological requirements, existence of complete list of all used statistical methods of analysis and criterions of the test of hypothesis.

4.5. Sufficiency of data for study.

4.6. Adherence to the ethical standards according to World Medical Association's Declaration of Helsinki Ethical principles of conduction of scientific medical studies with participation of human with the amendments from 2000 and The rules of clinical practice in Russian Federation confirmed with the Order of Ministry of Health of the Russian Federation from 19.06.2003, #266. In articles with animal studies compliance with The rules for performance of works using experimental animals (Supplement for the order of Ministry of Health of USSR from 12.08.1977, #755).

4.7. Correctness of discussion of received results.

4.8. Accordance of conclusions to objective and tasks of research.

4.9. Availability of volume of manuscript in whole and its separate elements (text, tables, illustrative materials, references).

4.10. Appropriateness of placement of tables, illustrative materials in article and their correspondence to stated topic.

4.11. Quality of design of article: style, terminology, formulations.

4.12. The final part of review has to include well-founded conclusions about an article in whole and clear recommendations about appropriateness of its publication in the journal or about necessity of its improvement.

5. All reviews are authenticated in the order determined in an institution where a reviewer works.

6. Reviewing is performed privately, an author is not informed about reviewers name, and reviewer about name of author of article. An author of reviewed article has an opportunity to take a look at reviewers comments.

7. If a review contains some recommendations for correction and improvement of article, the editorial office sends to author the reviewers notes with offer to consider it during preparation of new variant of the article or to reject it with reason (partially or fully). An article improved (reworked) by author is directed to repeated reviewing.

8. The article, which is not recommended by author for publication, is not accepted for repeated consideration. The text of negative conclusion is sent to an author by e-mail.

9. Existence of positive review is not a sufficient cause for article publication. The definitive decision about appropriateness of publication is made by the editorial board of the journal Polytrauma.

10. After the editorial board of the journal Polytrauma makes decision about article publication, the author is informed by e-mail and the terms of publication are indicated.

11. Originals of decisions are saved in the editorial office of the journal Polytrauma not less than a year.