- » Aim and Scope
- » Section Policies
- » Publication Frequency
- » Open Access Policy
- » Archiving
- » Peer-Review
- » Indexation
- » Publishing Ethics
- » Founder
- » Author fees
- » Disclosure and Conflict of Interest
- » Plagiarism detection
- » Preprint and postprint Policy
- » Principles on informed consent
- » Animal and Human Rights
- » Advertising Policy
- » Data sharing policy
- » Journal Position on Electronic Backup (Access to Archive)
- » Subscription
Aim and Scope
The main goal of the journal "Ateroscleroz" is to summarize scientific and practical achievements in the study of atherosclerosis and related diseases.
The scientific concept of the journal involves the publication of modern achievements in the diagnosis, treatment and prevention of atherosclerosis, the results of national and international clinical and epidemiological studies.
The journal highlights the biochemical and molecular and genetic mechanisms of the development of atherosclerosis, population and clinical data on risk factors and the prevalence of diseases of atherosclerotic origin in various regions of Russia.
The journal publishes scientific articles on original research, literature reviews and theoretical articles. Another important objective of the magazine is to inform about the results of past congresses and conferences in Russia.
Journal "Ateroscleroz" is intended for practicing physicians — internists, cardiologists, lipidologists and others, as well as for scientists working at research institutes in Russia and abroad.
Journal "Ateroscleroz" is freely accessible online. No fee is charged for manuscript submission, subediting, or publication.
The titles and contents of research articles published in the journal should be compliant to two fields of science (medical sciences and biological sciences) and three groups of researcher specialties (3.1.0 — Clinical medicine, 3.2.0 — Preventive medicine and 3.3.0 — Biomedical sciences).
The editorial board promotes the policy of full compliance with the principles of international scientific publishing ethics. All submitted materials undergo a compulsory double-blind peer reviewing process, each article is appreciated by two independent reviewers.
Aims of the Journal
- Improvement of the communication and mutual understanding among biomedical scientists for fruitful cooperation and acquiring of knowledge on the mechanisms of disease emergence and development.
- Improvement of the quality of articles chosen for publication up to the global standards by all means, including the recruitment of Russian and non-Russian top professionals.
- Attraction of the audience attention to the topical and promising fields of research within the remit of the Journal.
- Extension of the panel of reviewers by recruiting distinguished Russian and non-Russian experts.
Section Policies
Peer Reviewed Open Submissions |
Indexed |
Peer Reviewed |
| Open Submissions |
Indexed |
Peer Reviewed |
| Open Submissions |
Indexed |
Peer Reviewed |
| Open Submissions |
Indexed |
Peer Reviewed |
| Open Submissions |
Indexed |
Peer Reviewed |
| Open Submissions |
Indexed |
Peer Reviewed |
| Open Submissions |
Indexed |
Peer Reviewed |
Publication Frequency
4 issues per year
Open Access Policy
"Ateroscleroz" 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.
Journal materials are licensed under Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Archiving
- Russian State Library (RSL)
- National Electronic-Information Consortium (NEICON)
Peer-Review
Reviews
All submissions to the Journal "Ateroscleroz" undergo a double-blind peer reviewing procedure in the form of internal and external reviewing processes. The submitted manuscripts should meet the aim and scope of the Journal "Ateroscleroz" and follow Author Guidelines.
Internal reviews
Within 3 days following receipt of the manuscript, the Executive Secretary will be checking
- if the submitted material falls within the scope of the journal;
- if the accompanying documents and the authors' signatures are in place;
- if the manuscript is properly structured and formatted;
- if information on research funding sources, Conflicts of Interest, Acknowledgments and authors' contribution is in place;
- if the article complies with the reporting guidelines set out by the EQUATOR Network;
- if the article complies with the ethical standards set out in Publishing Ethics;
- if the article has run through the anti-plagiarism service Antiplagiat successfully.
Upon the completion of the internal reviewing process, the manuscript will either advance to external reviews (if minor or no revisions are suggested), be returned to the authors for revision (if other than minor revisions are required) or, should the authors have been found to brazenly disregard Author Guidelines, be reclined with an explanation stated to the authors.
External reviews
The decision of who to ask to act as a referee for any particular article, depending on its subject, is at the discretion of the Editor-in-Chief, Deputy Editor-in-Chief and Executive Secretary. The referees act on a voluntary pro bono basis. Independent referees are chosen from among renowned experts in the corresponding subject of biomedical science, who has publications on the subject of the peer-reviewed article over the past 3 years, who hold scientific degrees and has neither scientific nor financial nor any other kind of relationship with the authors of the manuscript. Members of the Editorial Board may step down as external referees, too.
If there is a conflict of interest arising from competition, collaboration or any other kind of relationship between a referee and any of the authors, it is the referee's responsibility to withdraw from the peer-reviewing process. Some of the conflicts of interest relating to the peer-review process may arise from the following situations:
- a referee is a member of the same organization as the author(s) of the submitted manuscript;
- there is or has recently been a collaboration between a referee and the author(s) of the submitted manuscript;
- a referee and the author(s) have co-authored publications over the past 5 years;
- a referee has interpersonal relationships with the author(s) of the submitted manuscript that may bias the assessment.
The following persons are not eligible to be considered as referees: the author (or any co-author) of the manuscript to be peer-reviewed, thesis tutors and staff in the division, of which the author (or the co-authors) of the manuscript is a member.
The reviewing process is confidential. The referees are notified that the manuscripts they will be reviewing are the authors' intellectual property and the information contained therein should not be disclosed. The referees are not allowed to use manuscripts for purposes other than reviewing.
The referees and authors should follow the ethic standards set out in Publishing Ethics.
The referee should follow the Journal's template, with the following points to be addressed:
- How important is the submitted article?
- What is novel about this research?
- What are practical implications of the problem set and/or results obtained for that particular field of knowledge?
- Are the methods used in research relevant and up-to-date?
- Is the material sufficient and informative?
- Were the results discussed consistent and exhaustive?
- Are the conclusions consistent with the aims and goals of the research work?
- Is the length of the manuscript as a whole and in parts (text, tables, illustrations and references) not exceeded?
- Are the tables, artwork and illustrations relevant, necessary and of good quality?
- Are the style and terminology consistent and relevant?
The referee's assessment of the manuscript should be unbiased. No personal remarks are allowed. The referee's opinion should be clear and grounded.
Whenever possible, the referee should identify significant publications that have relevance to the subject of the manuscript being reviewed but have not been referenced. Any statement made by the referee that an observation, a conclusion or a point in the manuscript being reviewed has been reported elsewhere should be supported by an exact reference. The referee should inform the Editor-in-Chief of any substantial similarity or overlap between the manuscript being reviewed and any other publication that has come to his or her attention.
The reviewing process normally takes 3 weeks; however, it can be prolonged at the referee's request.
Review outcomes
Upon the completion of the reviewing process, the referee makes and explains one of the following recommendations:
- the article can be published without correction;
- the article can be published with minor corrections and without additional peer review or with more substantial corrections and with additional peer review;
- the article cannot be published; the authors should be notified of rejection, with the reasons for it explained.
A positive review is not a publication decision. Normally the Editorial Board's publication decision is final. If the author and the referees have a dispute that they cannot settle, the Editor-in-Chief's decision is final.
Once the publication decision has been made, the author is notified of it and of when publication is expected. The originals of the reviews are kept for 5 years. The Journal agrees to send copies of reviews to the Ministry of Science and Higher Education of the Russian Federation at the Ministry's request.
No payment is offered to the authors for their articles. Manuscripts and data storage devices are not returned to the authors.
Revision
The Editor corresponds with the person indicated as the corresponding author in the cover letter.
If a referee recommends that the manuscript be revised, the corresponding author is notified and asked either to respond to the referees' comments or to make compelling arguments about what the author disagrees on. It is the corresponding author's responsibility to discuss expected changes to the manuscript with the co-authors.
The authors highlight the changes that they have made and put their answers to the referees' questions below the article along with explanations of what is agreed and what is not. Revision should take no longer than 6 months following notification by the Journal that the authors are expected to respond to the referees' comments. The revised version of the manuscript is re-submitted for external peer review.
If the author disagrees with some or all comments, he or she should send a well-argued explanation to the Editor. If the author and the referees have a dispute that they cannot settle, the Editorial Board has an option to send the manuscript to additional peer review. If this still fails to rectify the dispute, the Editor-in-Chief's decision is final.
Author's decision not to correct
If the author chooses not to respond to the referees' comments, he or she should notify the Editor in writing of their decision. If the authors have failed to do so or have not returned a revised version after 6 months following dispatch of the review, the submission is unregistered and the authors are notified. The authors may re-submit the manuscript for publication, and it will be considered a new submission.
Journal's decision not to publish
The decision not to publish an article is made by the Editor-in-Chief and the Editorial Board following the referees' recommendations. No resubmission for articles rejected by the Editorial Board. The Editor either notifies the authors of rejection, with the reasons for it explained, or send recommendations for improvement. Additionally, the Journal agrees to send copies of reviews to the Ministry of Science and Higher Education of the Russian Federation at the Ministry's request.
Appealing a rejection
If an author appeals a rejection decision, he or she should write to the Editor within 30 days following the rejection date.
An appeal should include the Editors' and Referees' remarks that the authors disagree on. If the authors successfully demonstrate that these remarks are poorly supported or altogether unsupported, the Journal may withdraw its decision to reject the article. The Editor-in-Chief's decision is final.
Indexation
Articles in "Ateroscleroz" are indexed by several systems:
- Russian Index for Science Citation (RISC) – 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).
- 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.
- DOAJ
- Ulrich’s Periodicals Directory
- РГБ
- Dimensions
- Lens
- Research4life
- WorldCat
- EBSCO Information Services
Publishing Ethics
The Publication Ethics and Publication Malpractice Statement of the journal "Ateroscleroz" 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, the publisher and the society for society-owned or sponsored journal: "Ateroscleroz"
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 programmes record «the minutes of science» and we recognise 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 decision – The Editor of the Journal "Ateroscleroz" is solely and independently responsible for deciding which of the articles submitted to the journal should be published, often working on conjunction with the relevant society (for society-owned or sponsored journals). 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 "Ateroscleroz" 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 (or society officers) in making this decision.
2.2. Fair play – An 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 "Ateroscleroz" 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 (and/or society) 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 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.
3. Duties of Reviewers
3.1. 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.
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 "Ateroscleroz" 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 "Ateroscleroz" 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 (and if relevant, Society)
5.1. Publisher should adopt policies and procedures that support editors, reviewers and authors of "Ateroscleroz" 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 "Ateroscleroz" 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 specialised legal review and counsel if necessary.
Founder
- Federal State Budgetary Institution “Siberian Branch of Russian Academy of Sciences”
- Federal State Budgetary Scientific Institution “The Federal Research Center Institute of Cytology and Genetics of Siberian Branch of Russian Academy of Sciences”
Author fees
Publication in "Ateroscleroz" is free of charge for all the authors.
The journal doesn't have any Article 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
The Journal "Ateroscleroz" uses 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 "Ateroscleroz", 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 "Ateroscleroz" 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)
Principles on informed consent
The journal "Ateroscleroz" relies on the principles of the World Medical Association's (WMA) policy statement - the Declaration of Helsinki - a statement of Ethical Principles for Medical Research Involving Human Subjects) and endeavours to ensure compliance with ethical and data collection standards for research involving human subjects. Before beginning research, the researchers should familiarise themselves with the principles of the Helsinki Declaration on informed consent and carry out the research in strict accordance with those principles as set forth below (Articles 25-32 of the Helsinki Declaration are given):
25. Participation by individuals capable of giving informed consent as subjects in medical research must be voluntary. Although, it may be appropriate to consult family members or community leaders, no individual capable of giving informed consent may be enrolled in a research study unless he/she freely agrees.
26 In medical research involving human subjects capable of giving informed consent, each potential subject must be adequately informed of the aims, methods, sources of funding, any possible conflicts of interest, institutional affiliations of the researcher, the anticipated benefits and potential risks of the study and the discomfort it may entail, post-study provisions and any other relevant aspects of the study. The potential subject must be informed of his right to refuse to participate in the study or to withdraw his consent to participate at any time without reprisal. Special attention should be given to the specific information needs of individual potential subjects as well as the methods used to deliver the information.
After ensuring that the potential subject has understood the information, the physician or another appropriately qualified individual must then seek the potential subject's freely-given informed consent, preferably in writing. If the consent cannot be expressed in writing, verbal consent must be formally documented and witnessed.
All medical subjects should be given the option of being informed about the general outcome and results of the study.
27. When seeking informed consent for participation in a research study, the physician must be particularly cautious when the potential subject is in a dependent relationship with the physician or may consent under duress. In such situations, the informed consent must be sought by an appropriately qualified individual who is completely independent of this relationship.
28. For a potential research subject who is incapable of giving informed consent, the physician must seek informed consent from his legally authorised representative. These individuals must not be included in a research study that has no likelihood of benefit for them unless it is intended to promote the health of the group represented by the potential subject, the research cannot instead be performed with persons capable of providing informed consent, and the research entails minimal risk and burden.
When a potential research subject who is deemed incapable of giving informed consent is able to give assent to decisions about participation in research, the physician must seek that assent in addition to the consent of the legally authorised representative. The potential subject's dissent should be respected.
30. Research involving subjects who are physically or mentally incapable of giving consent, for example, unconscious patients, may be done only if the physical or mental condition that prevents giving informed consent is a necessary characteristic of the research group. In such circumstances the physician must seek informed consent from the legally authorised representative. If no such representative is available and if the research cannot be delayed, the study may proceed without informed consent provided that the specific reasons for involving subjects with a condition that renders them unable to give informed consent have been stated in the research protocol and the study has been approved by a research ethics committee. Consent to remain in the research must be obtained as soon as possible from the subject or a legally authorised representative.
31. The physician must fully inform the patient which aspects of their care are related to the research. The refusal of a patient to participate in a study or the patient's decision to withdraw from the study should never adversely affect the patient-physician relationship.
32. For medical research using identifiable human material or data, such as research on material or data contained in biobanks or similar repositories, physicians must seek informed consent for its collection, storage and/or reuse. There may be exceptions where consent would be impossible or impractical to obtain for such research. In such situations, the research may be done only after consideration and approval of a research ethics committee.
Animal and Human Rights
Human rights clause
When presenting the results of experimental studies in humans, the Authors in the corresponding section of the article should indicate whether the procedures performed met the ethical standards described in the Helsinki Declaration. If the study was conducted without taking into account the principles of the Declaration, the authors should justify the chosen approach to the study and ensure that the Ethics Committee of the organization in which the study was conducted approved the chosen approach.
Animal rights regulation
When conducting an experimental study on animals, Authors must confirm compliance with institutional and national standards for the use of laboratory animals. CONSENSUS AUTHOR GUIDELINES FOR ANIMAL USE.
Advertising Policy
Advertising Policy was developed on the basis of Publication Ethics Policies for Medical Journals of the World Association of Medical Editors (WAME) and the Federal Law of the Russian Federation No. 38 FZ "On Advertising" dated back to 03.13.2006 with amendments (introduced by Federal Laws dated 27.12.2018 N 514-ФЗ, dated 02.08.2019 N 259-ФЗ) which entered into force on January 1, 2020 (rev. 61).
- Since scientific Journal derives a substantial income from advertising or reprints, creating a potential conflict of interest. Editorial decisions (Chief Editors’, Scientific editors’, Publishing Editor’s decisions) should not be influenced by advertising revenue or reprint potential. Editorial and advertising functions at the journal are independent. Advertisers and donors should have no control over editorial material under any circumstances.
- Reprinted articles must be published as they originally appeared in the Journal (including subsequent corrections); that is, there is no alteration or revision of articles for a supplement or reprint other than corrections.
- Placement of advertising text in periodicals should be accompanied by the mark "advertising" or the mark "as an advertisement". The size of advertising should be no more than forty-five percent of one issue of periodicals.
- All advertisements should clearly identify the advertiser and the product or service being offered. In the case of drug advertisements, the full generic name of each active ingredient should appear.
- Advertising of medicines, dietary supplements and food supplements must comply with the legislation of the Russian Federation.
- Commercial advertisements should not be placed adjacent to any editorial matter that discusses the product being advertised, nor adjacent to any article reporting research on the advertised product, nor should they refer to an article in the same issue in which they appear.
- Advertising must not be deceiving or misleading. Advertising should not exaggerate the real characteristics of the advertised product. Advertising should not contain offensive considerations of a religious, racial nature.
- Advertised products should focus on medical practice, medical education or medical care.
- The Journal “Ateroscleroz” has the right to refuse to place any advertising material due to its non-compliance with the requirements and policies of the Journal. The decision to publish an advertisement should be made only with the participation of the Editor, Reviewer and Editorial board of the Journal.
Data sharing policy
Authors are encouraged to make the research data that support their publications available but are not required to do so. The decision to publish will not be affected by whether or not authors share their research data.
Definition of research data
This policy applies to the research data that would be required to verify the results of research reported in articles published in the journal “Ateroscleroz”. Research data include data produced by the authors (“primary data”) and data from other sources that are analysed by authors in their study (“secondary data”). Research data includes any recorded factual material that are used to produce the results in digital and non-digital form. This includes tabular data, code, images, audio, documents, video, maps, raw and/or processed data.
Definition of exceptions
The data that is not a subject to public disclosure may be delivered as follows: deposited in science data repositories with limited access or preliminary anonymised. An author can also publicly deliver metadata only and/or description of the method of access to the data under requests from other scholars.
Data repositories
The preferred mechanism for sharing research data is via data repositories. Please see or https://repositoryfinder.datacite.org/ for help finding research data repositories.
Data citation
The Editorial Board of the Journal “Ateroscleroz” welcomes access to data under Creative Commons Licenses. Editorial Board of the Journal “Ateroscleroz” does not insist on the obligatory use of Creative Commons in case when the data is deposited in the repositories of the third party. The Publisher of the Journal “Ateroscleroz” does not assert any copyrights for the data submitted by the author together with the article.
Questions regarding the observation of that policy shall be sent to the executive secretary of the Journal “Ateroscleroz”.
Journal Position on Electronic Backup (Access to Archive)
The purpose of the backup is to prevent loss of information in the event of hardware, software, critical and crisis situations, etc.
The following categories of information are subject to backup:
- personal information of authors (personal directories on file servers);
- texts of published articles in pdf format;
- information about literary links to an article in the DOI system.
All this information is publicly available in the Russian citation index system on the website of the Scientific Digital Library
Subscription
To subscribe to the printed version of the journal, write to the editor (ateroscleroz@gmail.com).
