Patologiya krovoobrashcheniya i kardiokhirurgiya journal publishes original research articles, reviews, case series, editorials, and materials on the history of cardiac surgery. The main sections include:

• Congenital Heart Disease;
• Acquired Heart Disease;
• Coronary Artery Disease;
• Valvular Heart Disease;
• Endovascular Surgery;
• Heart Rhythm Disorders;
• CardioAnesthesiology;
• CardioOncology;
• Neurosurgery.

Articles should be written in Russian or English, contain the original results and not be previously published in print or electronic format (except abstract, conference poster or thesis).

The methods and statistical analysis should be appropriate and presented in detail. The findings should be described clearly, honestly, without data fudging and manipulation. The conclusions should be confirmed by the data obtained.

The research involving human/people should meet with the Declaration of Helsinki and be approved by ethics committee or institutional review board. The written informed consent should be obtained from all participants before enrollment.

The research involving experiments on animals should meet with ARRIVE Guidelines and be approved by ethics committee or institutional review board.

All listed authors should comply with the ICMJE authorship criteria, disclose all potential conflict of interests and role of funding.

Reviewing

Articles are reviewed by internal and external experts. Editors and editorial board members are allowed to publish their articles in the journal, however, in this case, they do not hold sway over the reviewing process. Editorial articles are not subject to external reviewing.

The editorial board offers a double-blind review, i.e. both the reviewer and the author identities are concealed from reviewers, and vice versa, throughout the review process. However, reviewers, if they wish, may sign their notes. An open expert overview does not imply that authors may directly correspond to reviewers; all requests should be sent as before to the editorial office. 

Internal reviewing

On receipt of a manuscript, editors check for:

• compliance with the journal’s profile,
• supporting documents,
• design and structure of the article,
• compliance with Author Guidelines,
• compliance with the ethical standards,
• the originality of content by plagiarism screening service.

At the stage of internal reviewing, the paper could be returned to authors for revision. Papers suited for further reviewing will undergo expert evaluation by two independent reviewers. External experts are chosen by the deputy editor.

External reviewing

All reviewers are competent specialists in the subjects of papers under review and have relevant during the recent 3 years. Eligible for reviewing are editorial board members and guest experts in the appropriate branch of medicine. As a rule, the article is reviewed by two external experts and statistical editor.

Statistical reviewing

Original research articles containing statistical methods are reviewed by statistical editor.

Manuscript correction 

The editorial board enters into correspondence with the author pointed out in the cover letter as a corresponding one. The corresponding author adjusts all changes with his/her co-authors.

If a review contains recommendations for any corrections and revisions in the paper, the editor sends the reviewer’s comments to the corresponding author requesting to consider these comments while preparing a new version of the paper or to disprove them (partially or fully) in a well-argued manner. The author italicizes the corrections in colors and gives the answers to reviewers’ questions while pointing to what he agrees with and what he doesn’t at the end of the manuscript. Revising the manuscript should not exceed 2 months starting from the time the notice to introduce changes is sent to authors. The paper revised by the author is recurrently forwarded for review. 

If the author disagrees with the reviewer’s opinion, he should submit a well-reasoned response to the editorial office. In the event the author and reviewers face insoluble conflicts regarding the manuscript, the editorial board is eligible to send it for additional reviewing. The editor-in-chief makes the decision in a conflict situation.

Refusal to correct a manuscript

If authors decide not to revise their articles, they have to notify the editorial office, in writing or orally, of their refusal from publishing the paper. Should authors fail to return the revised version within 3 months after receiving the review, even in the absence of the authors’ notice of their refusal to revise the paper, the editor will strike it off the register. In such cases, authors are duly notified that their manuscript won’t be published owing to the expiration of the time specified for revision of the paper.

Denial of publication

The decision to deny publication of the paper is made by the editor-in-chief and the editorial board according to the reviewers’ recommendations. The paper not recommended for publication won’t be reconsidered. The editor sends a well-argued denial of publication and recommendations for paper correction to authors and undertakes to forward copies of reviews to the Ministry of Education and Science of Russian Federation, should editors receive an appropriate request to do so. 

Appeal

If authors do not agree on the editorial decision and think that the denial of publication was unjust, they should send an appeal to the editorial office within 30 days after receiving the denial notice. 

The appeal should contain all remarks of editors and reviewers that authors do not agree with. The editorial board may change its initial decision if the injustice of remarks is proved and rebutted by authors and the latter submit additional documents confirming their point of view. The editor-in-chief makes the final decision. 

Basic principles to which peer reviewers should adhere

How to review a paper

The editorial office uses an electronic reviewing process and has an electronic database of reviewers. To get access to a review form, log in and inform the editorial office about your scientific interests. A reviewer fills out the form in his personal account at the journal’s site.

After reviewing, the expert gives recommendations. As soon as the recommendation is provided, the paper’s status in the author’s personal account at the journal’s site is changed. The status might be:

Manuscript accepted. Reviewers have no major remarks. The paper is to be handled by the publishing group (the designer and proofreaders).

Manuscript revision. The paper needs minor or major revision and second time reviewing. The corresponding author receives an anonymous reviewers’ comments by email, need to revise paper and then upload revised version to the journal's site. 

Manuscript denied. The corresponding author receives a well-argued denial.

Authorship

According to the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE), authorship is based on the following 4 criteria:

1. Substantial contributions to the conception or design of the work; or the acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data for the work; AND
2. Drafting the work or reviewing it critically for important intellectual content; AND
3. Final approval of the version to be published; AND
4. Agreement to be accountable for all aspects of the work in ensuring that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work are appropriately investigated and resolved.

Artificial intelligence (AI)-assisted technology

Artificial intelligence do not meet the ICMJE authorship criteria, being able to give “final approval of the version to be published” (3) and “to be accountable for all aspects of the work in ensuring that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work are appropriately investigated and resolved” (4), so it should not be listed as author of the article. If authors have used AI-assisted technology to create text or images during the preparation of the manuscript, they should indicate this in the cover letter as well as in the abstract and the Methods section. Authors are responsible for all content of the manuscript, including that generated by artificial intelligence.
See: COPE position statement and WAME Recommendations

Author's changes

All authors should agree to be listed and should approve the submitted and accepted versions of the publication. Any change to the author list should be approved by all authors including any who have been removed from the list or added. In all cases of changes, before or after publication, editors follow COPE Authorship flowcharts. 

Acknowledgement

Contributors who meet fewer than all 4 of the above criteria for authorship should not be listed as authors, but they should be acknowledged. The corresponding author should obtain written permission to be acknowledged from all acknowledged individuals. A copy of informed consent should be sent to the editorial office.

Corresponding author

The corresponding author has primary responsibility for correspondence with the editorial office during the manuscript submission, peer-review, and publication process. Although the corresponding author has primary responsibility for gathering supporting documents and forms, all authors are accountable for all aspects of the work.

The corresponding author is responsible for communicating with other authors about revisions and final approval of the article. The editor sends copies of all correspondence to all listed authors if the corresponding author provides the co-authors' email address.

The corresponding author should be available throughout the submission, peer-review process to respond to the editorial office, and after publication.

See ICMJE's Recommendations for more information.

ORCID ID

ORCID is a non-profit organization run by and for the research community. ORCID provides a persistent digital identifier that distinguishes you from every other researcher and, through integration in key research workflows such as manuscript and grant submission, supports automated linkages between you and your professional activities ensuring that your work is recognized.

Many researchers have the same or a similar names. It is a big problem for non-english researchers, especially whose names have a lot of english transliterations. Having and using ORCID ID ensures that you are correctly identified because you can add all variations of your name to your ORCID record. Many manuscript submission, funder systems, research platforms integrated with ORCID. Use your ORCID ID during submitting a manuscript or applying for a grant, and see it appear in your record when it’s published or awarded.

ORCID ID is a reliable connection between your ID and research activities. Use it to share your contribution with research world-wide community. Your ORCID ID is your life-long digital name (digital CV).

Authors should get and use ORCID ID.

1. Register to get your unique ORCID identifier.
2. Enhance your ORCID record with your professional information and link to your other identifiers (Scopus Author ID and Web of Science ResearcherID).
3. Add all variations of your name to your ORCID record.
4. Export your works from CrossRef, Scopus and Web of Science to ORCID record. You can also sign up for auto-update (currently CrossRef and DataCite)
5. Include your ORCID identifier during submission on journal’s site and on title page of your article.
6. Check whether your article automatically appears in your ORCID record when it is published or add it manually.

All authors should set up ORCID record in English. It is important to enhance the ORCID record with your career information (education, current employment, published works with DOI). If you haven’t been published before register for an ORCID ID and fill your career information. Your first work appears in profile when it is published. Please do not provide a link to a blank profile.

Publishing Ethics

Patologiya krovoobrashcheniya i kardiokhirurgiya journal aims to adhere to Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) Guidelines for editors, CORE PRACTICES, and Responsible research publication: international standards for editors. Editors also follow:

• International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) Recommendations for the Conduct, Reporting, Editing, and Publication of Scholarly work in Medical Journals,
• World Association of Medical Editors, Policies for Medical Journal Editors,
• CSE’s White Paper on Promoting Integrity in Scientific Journal Publications,
• Publishing resources of Association of Science Editors and Publishers (Russia).

Reviewers and authors are expected to comply with COPE Ethical Guidelines.

In cases of suspected misconduct, editors will follow the COPE flowcharts.

Duties of Editors

Publication decision

Editors are 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. Editors may be guided by the policies of the editorial board and constrained by such legal requirements as shall then be in force regarding libel, copyright infringement and plagiarism. Editors may confer with other editors or reviewers (or society officers) in making this decision.

Fair play

Editors should evaluate manuscripts for their intellectual content without regard to race, gender, sexual orientation, religious belief, ethnic origin, citizenship, or political philosophy of authors.

Confidentiality 

Editors 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.

Disclosure and conflicts of interest

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.

Editors should recuse themselves (i.e. should ask a co-editor, associate editor or another 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.

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 (and/or society) to promote the prompt publication of a correction, retraction, expression of concern, or other note, as may be relevant.

Involvement and cooperation in investigations

An editor should take reasonably responsive measures when ethical complaints have been presented concerning a submitted manuscript or published paper, in conjunction with the publisher (or society). 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.

Duties of Reviewers

Contribution to editorial decisions 

Peer 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.

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 editorial office and excuse himself from the review process.

Confidentiality 

Any manuscripts received for review must be treated as confidential documents. They must not be shown to or discussed with others except as authorized by the editor.

Standard and objectivity 

Reviews should be conducted objectively. Personal criticism of the author is inappropriate. Referees should express their views clearly with supporting arguments.

Acknowledgment of sources  

Reviewers should identify relevant published work that has not been cited by 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.

Disclosure and conflicts 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 paper.

Reviewers should inform editors about potential or evident competing interests as quick as possible. 

Duties of Authors

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. Review and professional publication articles should also be accurate and objective, and editorial 'opinion’ works should be clearly identified as such.

Authors bear corporative responsibility for their work and content of the publication. Researchers should check their publications at every stage to ensure that all methods and findings are accurately presented. They should carefully verify all estimates, data presentation, documents drawn up by them and evidence.

False or knowingly fraudulent statements are considered as improper conduct and are unacceptable by editors.

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.

Originality and plagiarism

Authors should ensure that they have written entirely original works, and if authors have used the work and/or words of others, this has journal or quoted.

Multiple, redundant or concurrent publication

An author should notstandards 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 behavior and is unacceptable.

In general, an author should not submit for consideration in another journal a previously published paper.

Publication of some kinds of articles (eg, clinical guidelines, translations) in more than one journal is sometimes justifiable, provided certain conditions are met. 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 ICMJE policy on Overlapping Publications - Acceptable Secondary Publication.

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.

Co-authors

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.

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.

Acknowledgment

All participants who do not fulfill 4 ICMJE authorship criteria should be named in the Acknowledgement section. Appreciation should be expressed to those who provide technical assistance, or to the department head. Financial and actual support should be also acknowledged.

Corresponding author

The corresponding author should act as a point of contact between the editorial office and the other authors and should keep co-authors informed and involve them in major decisions about the publication (e.g. responding to reviewers’ comments). In the cover letter, it is necessary to include the corresponding author’s phone number and email. His name should be asterisked on the title page. 

Authors should respond to reviewers’ comments in a professional and timely manner.

Hazards and human or animal subjects 

When sending a paper to Patologiya krovoobrashcheniya i kardiokhirurgiya journal, authors state that their research meets the existing international ethical standards (respect for patients’ rights and confidentiality) and their institution’s standards or those of the Federal Committee liable for experiments with participation of a human (s) or animals.  

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. Participants of research should be disguised.

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.

Disclosure and conflicts of interest

All authors should disclose in their manuscript any financial or other substantive conflict of interest that might be construed to influence results or interpretation of their manuscript. All sources of financial support for the project should be disclosed.

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 the editorial office and cooperate with it to retract or correct the paper. If editors or the publishing group 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.

Conflict of Interest

Patologiya krovoobrashcheniya i kardiokhirurgiya journal follows the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) Recommendations for the Conduct, Reporting, Editing, and Publication of Scholarly work in Medical Journals:

A conflict of interest exists when professional judgment concerning a primary interest (such as patients' welfare or the validity of research) may be influenced by a secondary interest (such as financial gain). Perceptions of conflict of interest are as important as actual conflicts of interest.

Financial relationships (such as employment, consultancies, stock ownership or options, honoraria, patents, and paid expert testimony) are the most easily identifiable conflicts of interest and the most likely to undermine the credibility of the journal, authors, and of science itself. However, conflicts can occur for other reasons, such as personal relationships or rivalries, academic competition, and intellectual beliefs. Authors should avoid entering in to agreements with study sponsors, both for-profit and non-profit, that interfere with authors’ access to all of the study’s data or that interfere with their ability to analyze and interpret the data and to prepare and publish manuscripts independently when and where they choose.

Who declares conflict of interest?

All participants in the peer-review and publication process—not only authors but also peer reviewers, editors, and editorial board members—must consider their conflicts of interest when fulfilling their roles in the process of article review and publication and must disclose all relationships that could be viewed as potential conflicts of interest.

a. Authors

When authors submit a manuscript of any type or format they are responsible for disclosing all financial and personal relationships that might bias or be seen to bias their work. The ICMJE has developed a Form for Disclosure of Conflicts of Interest to facilitate and standardize authors’ disclosures. Authors should use this form at the time of manuscript submission. The form must be submitted for each author and even if there is nothing to disclose. It is the corresponding author responsibility to ensure that all authors adhere to disclose policy. A conflict of interest statement is also placed in the end of the manuscript and in the Conflict of Interest section on manuscript online submission system. This statement should be the same as in the ICMJE form and will be included in the published article. If there is nothing to declare, authors must state “The authors declare no conflict of interest”.

b. Peer Reviewers

Reviewers must disclose to editors any conflicts of interest that could bias their opinions of the manuscript, and should recuse themselves from reviewing specific manuscripts if the potential for bias exists. Reviewers must not use knowledge of the work they’re reviewing before its publication to further their own interests. A conflict of interest statement is placed in the Conflict of Interest section on the journal’s online reviewing system.

c. Editors and the Editorial Office

Editors who make final decisions about manuscripts should recuse themselves from editorial decisions if they have conflicts of interest or relationships that pose potential conflicts related to articles under consideration. Other editorial office members who participate in editorial decisions must provide editors with a current description of their financial interests or other conflicts (as they might relate to editorial judgments) and recuse themselves from any decisions in which a conflict of interest exists. The publishing group must not use information gained through working with manuscripts for private gain. Editors should publish regular disclosure statements about potential conflicts of interests related to the commitments of the editorial office. Guest editors should follow these same procedures.

The Form for Editors’ Disclosure of Conflicts of Interest must be submitted for all editors.

Policy on funding

At the end of the article and before references there should be a heading Funding, with all sources of funding disclosed. Authors describe the role of the study sponsor(s), if any, in the study design; in the collection, analysis and interpretation of the data; in the writing of the report; and in the decision to submit the paper for publication. If there was no sponsorship, then the statement “The study had no sponsorship” should be added. 

In case of undisclosed conflict of interest, Patologiya krovoobrashcheniya i kardiokhirurgiya journal follows COPE’s flowcharts: