1. All articles submitted to the journal “Reproductive Medicine” are subject to review.
2. The copy editor verifies whether the article is prepared in accordance with the State Standard 7.5-98 “Journals, collected works, information publications. Layout of the materials to be published”. The editor-in-chief verifies whether the article is compliant with the profile of the journal and whether this material is interesting for publication. The article is sent for review to two independent scientists or medical practitioners – candidates or doctors of science, whose scientific specialization is closest to the article topic.
3. Reviewers receive the article in hard and/or electronic form. Reviewers are notified that the articles sent to them are the property of the authors and contain information that is not subject to disclosure.
4. The review covers the following issues:
• whether the content of the article corresponds to the topic stated in the topic title;
• to what extent the article corresponds to modern achievements of science;
• whether the publication of the article is currently appropriate;
• whether the material of the article is original, whether there are borrowings and plagiarism in it;
• positive and negative aspects of the work, as well as proposals for article finalizing and supplementing.
• The reviewer confirms the possibility of the article publishing, the possibility of publishing with the introduction of the indicated improvements, or the article non-compliance with the conditions of publication in the journal “Reproductive Medicine”, notes the advantages and disadvantages of the article, its compliance or non-compliance with academic, practical and ethical requirements.
5. Reviewers recommend accepting the article for publication:
• recommend accepting the article with amendments;
• recommend accepting the article for publication in the public media after the author’s remedial actions.
6. If a positive decision is made on the admission of the article for publication, the copy editor informs the author about this and indicates the publication date.
7. If the article is evaluated negatively, the reviewer must convincingly substantiate his conclusions.
If the review contains recommendations for correcting and finalizing the article, the text of the review is sent to the author with a proposal to take them into account when preparing a new version of the article or to refute them with reason (partially or completely). In case of disagreement with the opinion of the reviewer, the author has the right to apply to the journal editorial board with a reasoned request to send his manuscript for review to another reviewer. In this case, the editorial board sends the manuscript for a second (additional) review or reasonably refuses to do so.
8. The review is to be kept in the editorial office of the journal for five years.