Peer-review process

Articles submitted for publication in “Actual Problems of Preventive Medicine” are received by the executive secretary, who conducts an initial assessment to verify compliance with formal requirements. The manuscript must meet the formatting guidelines and editorial policies of the journal. Articles that do not comply with the current requirements are not accepted for further consideration.

At the next stage, the article is reviewed by a reviewer. The peer review process is confidential and anonymous (the conditions of receipt, content, features, and stages of the review process, reviewers’ comments, and the final decision regarding publication are not disclosed to anyone except the authors and reviewers).

Selection of reviewers

Reviewers are selected by the responsible editor based on their expertise in the relevant field;
In the event of a conflict of interest, the reviewer is replaced by another independent expert;
The minimum number of reviews required for decision-making is two independent reviews.

The review process is carried out within 20 calendar days from the date of receipt of the article.

The reviewer evaluates the adequacy of the relevance of the topic; the justification of the connection between the problem addressed in the article and important scientific or practical tasks; the completeness of the analysis of recent research and publications on the general issue; the validity of the obtained scientific results; the scientific conclusions and their consistency with the aim of the article; and the prospects for further research in this area. The reviewer also assesses the author’s familiarity with the scientific literature related to the topic, as well as the language and style of the manuscript (clarity of language and style, the need for additional scientific or literary editing, etc.).

The review must contain specific conclusions regarding the suitability of the article for publication, indicating the main shortcomings (if any). The reviewer makes one of the following recommendations:

– the article is recommended for publication in its original form;
– the article is recommended for publication after revision and consideration of the indicated shortcomings;
– the article is rejected for publication due to specific reasons.

Revision of the manuscript

The author receives the reviewer’s comments and a deadline for revision, determined by the Editor-in-Chief and not exceeding 5 calendar days.

Minor stylistic corrections that do not affect the content of the article may be made by the editor without the author’s approval.

In the case of a positive review, the reviewer informs the editorial board, which makes the final decision on acceptance for publication. An article approved for publication is processed by technical and literary editors. Minor stylistic, orthographic, and technical corrections that do not affect the content may be made without the author’s consent.

Authors are informed of the results of the review and the editorial board’s decision via email. If the reviewer indicates the need for revisions, the executive secretary sends the manuscript to the author with a request to address the comments when preparing the revised version or, in case of disagreement, to provide a reasoned response.

Articles that have successfully passed peer review and editorial processing are included in the next issue of the journal.

The issue is signed by the Editor-in-Chief and recommended for publication by decision of the Academic Council.