Policies

Publication charge Up ↑

Publication in the journal is free for authors.

The editors do not charge authors for the preparation, placement and printing of materials.

The journal doesn't have any article submission charges.

The editors do not pay the authors of the publication and do not provide author's copies.

Scientific publications ethics   Up ↑

• Compliance with the rights of patients and the rules of bioethics
• Informed consent
• Regulation on human rights
• Editorial responsibility
• Reviewers’ responsibility
• Authors’ responsibility
• Conflicts of interest disclosure
• Financing
• Appeal claim
• Article withdrawal
• Borrowing and plagiarism
• Pre- and postprint placement policy

The editors of the journal aim to ensure the highest quality of published scientific materials, reviews and educational works. In its work, the editors adhere to the principles of editorial ethics set forth in the Guidelines for conducting, describing, editing and publishing the results of scientific work in medical journals of the International Committee of Medical Journals Editors (ICMJE) and the recommendations of the Committee on Scientific Ethics of Publications (Committee on Publication Ethics – COPE), as well as the Association of Science Editors and Publishers (ASEP).

The section is based on the materials of the publishing house of scientific and medical literature Elsevier, as well as on the materials of the International Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).

1. Introduction

1.1. Publication of materials in peer-reviewed journals is not only a simple way of scientific communication, but it also makes a significant contribution to the development of the relevant field of scientific knowledge. Thus, it is important to set standards for the future ethical behavior of all parties involved in the publication, namely: Authors, Journal Editors, Reviewers, Publishing Houses and Scientific Society for the journal of "Russian Journal of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery".

1.2. The publisher not only supports scientific communication and invests in this process, but is also responsible for following all modern recommendations in the published work.

1.3. The publisher is committed to the strictest supervision of scientific materials. Our journal programs provide an unbiased "report" of the development of scientific thought and research, so we are also aware of the responsibility for the proper presentation of these "reports", especially in terms of the ethical aspects of the publications outlined in this document.

2. Editorial responsibility

2.1. Publication decision

The editor of the scientific journal "Russian Journal of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery" is personally and independently responsible for making the decision to publish, often in collaboration with the relevant Scientific Society. The decision about publication must be always based on the work’s reliability and its significance. The editor can follow the editorial policy of "Russian Journal of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery" journal, being limited by current legal requirements related to libel, copyright, legality and plagiarism.

The Editor may consult with other Editors and Reviewers (or with Scientific Society officials) during the decision to publish.

The Editor must evaluate the intellectual content of manuscripts regardless of the race, gender, sexual orientation, religious beliefs, origin, citizenship or political preferences of the Authors.

2.3. The Editor and the Editorial Board of the journal of "Russian Journal of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery" are obliged not to disclose unnecessarily information about the accepted manuscript to all people, with the exception of Authors, Reviewers, potential Reviewers, other scientific consultants and the Publisher.

2.4. Disclosure policy and conflicts of interest

2.4.1. Unpublished data obtained from submitted manuscripts cannot be used in personal research without the written consent of the Author. Information or ideas obtained during the review and related to possible benefits must be kept confidential and not used for personal gain.

2.4.2. Editors should recuse themselves from reviewing manuscripts (namely: request a Co-Editor, Assistant Editor, or cooperate with other members of the Editorial Board when reviewing work instead of personally reviewing and making a decision) in case of conflicts of interest due to competitive, collaborative and other interactions and relationships with Authors, companies and possibly other organizations associated with the manuscript.

2.5. Publications surveillance

The editor who provides compelling evidence that some statements or conclusions presented in a publication are erroneous must notify the Publisher (and/or the relevant Scientific Society) for prompt notification about changes, withdrawals, concerns, and other relevant statements.

2.6. Research engagement and collaboration

The Editor, in conjunction with the Publisher (or the Scientific Society), take appropriate action in case of ethical claims regarding reviewed manuscripts or published materials. Such measures generally include interaction with the Authors of the manuscript and the argumentation of the corresponding complaint or requirement, but may also involve interaction with relevant organizations and research centers.

3. Reviewers’ responsibility

3.1. Influence on the Editorial Board decisions

Peer reviewing helps the Editor to make the decision to publish and, through appropriate interaction with Authors, can also help the Author to improve the quality of the work. Peer review is a necessary link in formal scientific communications, located at the very “heart” of the scientific approach. The publisher shares the view that all scholars who wish to contribute to a publication are required to do substantial peer review work.

3.2. Duty performance

Any selected Reviewer who feels not qualified enough to review a manuscript, or who does not have enough time to complete the work quickly, should notify the Editor of "Russian Journal of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery" journal and ask to be excluded from the review process of the corresponding manuscript.

3.3. Confidentiality

Any manuscript received for peer review must be treated as a confidential document. This work may not be opened or discussed with anyone not authorized to do so by the Editor.

3.4. Manuscript requirements and objectivity

The Reviewer is obliged to give an objective assessment. Personal criticism of the Author is unacceptable. Reviewers should express their opinion clearly and provide their reasons.

3.5. Acknowledgement of primary sources

Reviewers should identify significant published works which are relevant to the topic and not included in the reference of the manuscript. For any statement (observation, conclusion or argument) published earlier, the manuscript must have a corresponding bibliographic reference. The Reviewer should also draw the attention of the Editor in case of discovery of significant similarities or coincidences between the manuscript in question and any other published work that is within the scope of the Reviewer's scientific competence.

3.6. Disclosure and Conflict of Interest

3.6.1. Unpublished data obtained from submitted manuscripts cannot be used in personal research without the written consent of the Author. Information or ideas obtained during the review and related to possible benefits must be kept confidential and not used for personal gain.

3.6.2. Reviewers must not participate in the review of manuscripts in case of conflicts of interest due to competitive, joint and other interactions and relationships with any of the Authors, companies or other organizations associated with the submitted work.

4. Authors’ responsibility

4.1. Manuscript requirements

4.1.1. The authors of the original research report must provide reliable results of the work done, as well as an objective discussion of the significance of the study. The data underlying the work must be accurately presented. The work must contain sufficient details and bibliographic references for possible reproduction. False or deliberately erroneous statements are perceived as unethical behavior and are unacceptable.

4.1.2.Reviews and scientific articles must also be accurate and objective, the point of view of the Editors must be clearly indicated.

4.2. Raw data relevant to the manuscript may be requested from Authors for review by Editors. Authors should be prepared to provide public access to this kind of information (according to the ALPSP-STM Statement on Data and Databases), if feasible, and in any case be prepared to retain this data for an adequate period of time after publication.

4.3. Originality and plagiarism

4.3.1. Authors must ensure that the work presented is wholly original and, if other Authors' works or statements are used, they must provide appropriate bibliographic references or excerpts.

4.3.2. Plagiarism can exist in many forms, from presenting someone else's work as the author's, to copying or paraphrasing significant parts of someone else's work (without attribution) as well as claiming one's own rights to the results of someone else's research. Plagiarism in all forms is unethical and is unacceptable.

4.4. Plural, redundant and simultaneous publications

4.4.1. In general, the Author must not publish a manuscript mostly devoted to the same research in more than one journal as an original publication. Submitting the same manuscript to more than one journal at the same time is perceived as unethical behavior and is unacceptable.

4.4.2. In general, the Author must not submit a previously published article for consideration to another journal.

4.4.3. Publishing a certain type of article (e.g. clinical practice guidelines, translated articles) in more than one journal is ethical in some cases, under certain conditions. Authors and Editors of interested journals must agree to a secondary publication presenting necessarily the same data and interpretations as in the primary published work.

The bibliography of the primary work must also be included in the second publication. More information on acceptable forms of secondary (repeated) publications can be found on the page www.icmje.org.

4.5. Acknowledgement of primary sources

The contribution of others must always be acknowledged. Authors should cite publications that are relevant to the accomplishment of the submitted work. Data obtained privately, for example, in a conversation, correspondence or discussion with third parties, should not be used or presented without the clear written permission of the original source. Information obtained from confidential sources, such as evaluation of manuscripts or providing of grants, should not be used without the clear written permission of the Authors of the work related to confidential sources.

4.6. Publication authorship

4.6.1. The authors of the publication can only be people who have made a significant contribution to the formation of the concept of the work, the development, fulfillment or interpretation of the presented research. All those who have made significant contributions should be designated as Contributors. If research participants have made significant contributions in a particular area of the research project, they should be listed as having made significant contributions to the research.

4.6.2. The author must make sure that all participants who have made a significant contribution to the study are presented as Co-Authors and not listed as Co-Authors those who did not participate in the study, that all Co-Authors saw and approved the final version of the work and agreed with its submission for publication.

4.7. Risks. People and animals that are the objects of research

4.7.1. If the work involves the use of chemicals, procedures, or equipment that may involve any unusual risk, the Author must clearly indicate this in the manuscript.

4.7.2. If the work involves the participation of animals or people as objects of study, the Authors must make sure that the manuscript indicates that all stages of the study comply with the laws and regulations of research organizations, and are approved by the relevant committees. The manuscript must clearly state that informed consent has been obtained from all subjects of research. Privacy rights must always be respected.

4.8. Disclosure policy and conflicts of interest

4.8.1. All Authors are required to disclose in their manuscripts financial or other existing conflicts of interest that may be perceived as affecting the results or conclusions presented in the work.

4.8.2. The examples of potential conflicts of interest that must be disclosed include employment, consulting, stock ownership, royalties, expert opinions, patent applications or patent registrations, grants, and other financial support. Potential conflicts of interest must be disclosed as early as possible.

4.9. Significant errors in published works

If the Author finds significant errors or inaccuracies in the publication, the Author must inform the Editor of the journal "Russian Journal of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery" and interact with the Editor in order to remove the publication or correct errors as soon as possible. If the Editor or the Publisher receives information from a third party that the publication contains significant errors, the Author is obliged to withdraw the work or correct the errors as soon as possible.

5. Responsibilities of the Publishing house

5.1. The Publisher must follow policies and procedures that promote the ethical responsibilities of the Editors, Reviewers, and Authors of the journal "Russian Journal of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery" in accordance with these requirements. The Publisher must be sure that the potential profit from advertising or reprint production does not influence the Editors' decisions.

5.2. The Publisher should support the Editors of the journal of "Russian Journal of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery" in dealing with claims regarding the ethical aspects of published materials and help to interact with other journals and / or Publishers, if this facilitates the performance of duties by the Editors.

5.3. The Publisher should promote good research practice and implement industry standards to improve ethical guidelines, withdrawal procedures, and error correction.

5.4. The Publisher must provide appropriate specialized legal support (opinion or advice) if necessary.

Compliance with the rights of patients and the rules of bioethics  Up ↑

For an original study, it is necessary to indicate whether its protocol complied with ethical principles and the decision of which ethics committee approved the study (indicating the number of the document, the date of its signing and the official name of the committee).

Patients have the right to keep confidentiality which cannot be disclosed without their consent. Personally identifiable information, including patients’ names and initials, hospital numbers and case histories numbers must not be published in the form of written descriptions, photos and genealogies unless they are of high scientific value or unless the patient (or their parent/guardian) provides a written consent to publication. In this case, authors must inform patients whether it is likely that their personally identifiable material will be available on the Internet after publication. To publish the results of the original work, the authors must provide the editorial office with the written informed consent of the patient (patients) for the distribution of information and report this in the article by placing the following indication after the list of references:

Compliance with the rights of patients and the rules of bioethics. The study protocol was approved by the biomedical ethics Committee <…>.
All patients signed the informed consent to participate in the study.

If children were included in the study:

Compliance with the rights of patients and the rules of bioethics. The study protocol was approved by the biomedical ethics Committee <…>
The patients’ parents signed the informed consent for their children to participate in the study.

If the article includes a review of a clinical case:

Compliance with the rights of patients. The patient(s) signed the informed consent to the publication of their data.

If the patient is under 18:

Compliance with the rights of patients. Patient(s)’ parents signed the informed consent to the publication of his/her (their) data.

When using laboratory animals in a study, it is necessary to indicate whether the study protocol complied with the standards for conducting biomedical research involving animals:

Compliance with the rules of bioethics. The study protocol was approved by the biomedical ethics Committee of <name of first author's institution>.

The study was performed in accordance with the ethical standards for the treatment of animals adopted by the European Convention for the protection of vertebrate animals used for research and other scientific purposes.

Informed consent regulation Up ↑

In its work, the journal "Russian Journal of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery" relies on the provisions of the Declaration of Helsinki of the World Medical Association's (WMA Declaration of Helsinki – Ethical Principles for Medical Research Involving Human Subjects) and aims to ensure compliance with ethical standards and data collection rules for research conducted with the participation of people. Before starting a study, the scientist must study the provisions on informed consent of the Declaration of Helsinki and conduct research in strict accordance with the principles set out below (provided provisions of the Declaration of Helsinki 25–32):

"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 or 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 the right to refuse to participate in the study or to withdraw 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 to 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, the non-written consent must be formally documented and witnessed.

All medical research 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 if 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 the 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 only minimal risk and minimal burden.

29. 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 must 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 exceptional situations where consent would be impossible or impracticable to obtain for such research. In such situations the research may be done only after consideration and approval of a research ethics committee."

Human Rights Regulation Up ↑

Presenting the results of experimental studies on humans, the authors must indicate whether the procedures performed were in accordance with the ethical standards described in the Declaration of Helsinki. If the study was conducted without regard to the principles of the Declaration, the authors must 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.

Editorial responsibility  Up ↑

Editorial responsibility toward readers

The editors guarantee readers that the information published in the journal is reliable, unprejudiced and not biased by the interests of advertisers or other organizations.

The editors provide readers with information about the authors of materials published in journals and about the institutions in which the study was conducted.

The editors make honest and objective decisions regardless of commercial considerations and ensure a fair and efficient independent review process.

The editors inform readers about the involvement of commercial organizations and their role in conducting research or preparing publications and about any other conflicts of interest that may affect the results of research.

The editors consider complaints about materials published in the journal received from readers, and inform readers about the measures taken. If necessary, the editors publish clarifications and apologies to readers.

The editors protect the accuracy of published materials by making changes and refutations (withdrawal of articles) when necessary, as well as by not ignoring cases of alleged misconduct in the conduct of research and the publication of their results.

Editorial responsibility towar the authors

The editors have the right to accept articles for publication in the journal or reject them, according to the opinion of the reviewers about the relevance, originality, reliability of the information contained in the article and its compliance with the subject of the journal and the principles of editorial ethics adopted in the journal.

Reviewing is carried out according to the procedure for reviewing articles adopted in the editorial board.

Members of the editorial board may not be interested in accepting or rejecting an article. In case that a member of the editorial board abuses his position, this person is removed from work in the editorial office, and the author is given apologies in writing.

The editors inform the authors about all the requirements for them, as well as notify them of the reasons for the rejection of articles and give recommendations on how to eliminate these reasons. At the end of each issue, as well as on the journal's website, authors are provided with the information on the rules for preparing and submitting articles for publication.

The editors provide the authors with the opportunity to appeal in case of disagreement with the decision of the editors regarding the acceptance or rejection of the article.

The editors ensure that copyrights are observed when considering an application for publication.

The editors have the right to withdraw an already published article in case of disclosure of some facts that were not known during the review.

Editorial responsibility toward the objects of research

The editors are guided by the provisions of the Declaration of Helsinki on the ethical principles of medical research, approved by the World Medical Association (WMA) in 1964 and revised at the 64th WMA General Assembly in 2013.

The editors check whether the authors have the approval of the ethical committee for conducting of the published study.

Editorial responsibility toward organizations sponsoring research and publications

The editors are obliged to publish information about commercial organizations that supported the research or publication.

Editorial responsibility toward reviewers

The editors provide reviewers with guidelines for preparing conclusions on publications and a list of questions that the reviewer must answer in the process of reviewing the article.

The editors ensure that reviewers’ work is objective and impartial, timely identifying cases of violations and taking measures to eliminate them.

The editors draw up a conclusion on the acceptance or rejection of the article, based on the opinion of the reviewer.

The editorial office does not adopt an open review system, the editorial board ensures the anonymity of reviewers.

Reviewers' responsibility  Up ↑

Reviewers are obliged to:

• agree to review only those manuscripts for which they have sufficient knowledge and which they can review in time;

• provide the journal with accurate and true information about their personal and professional knowledge and experience;

• respect the confidentiality of the review and not disclose any details of the manuscript or review during or after the review to anyone, except for those who are authorized to do so;

• not use the information obtained during the review for your own benefit or the benefit of other people or organizations, to harm others or undermine others;

• declare all possible conflicts of interest and seek advice from the journal if you are not sure whether the existing situation constitutes a conflict of interest or not;

• do not allow the content of the review to be influenced by the origin of the manuscript, nationality, religious affiliation, political or other views of the authors, as well as commercial considerations;

• remain objective and constructive by refraining from hostile or inflammatory statements or slanderous or derogatory comments;

• be aware that pretending to be another person during peer review is a serious violation of proper behavior.

All reviewers are encouraged to read the full text of the COPE Ethical Guidelines for Reviewers in Russian (NEICON translation) and English.

Authors' responsibility   Up ↑

By submitting an application for the publication of an article in the journal, the authors confirm that the publication is designed in accordance with the requirements for the design of articles published on the journal's website, as well as at the end of each issue of the paper version.

Authors should understand that an article may be rejected if the following conditions are not met:

• published research must be conducted in accordance with ethical and legal standards;

• authors must present the results of their work clearly, honestly, without falsification and data manipulation;

• researchers must make an effort to describe the methodology for performing work in a clear and unambiguous manner so that their results can be validated by others;

• authors must strictly ensure that the proposed work contains original material, is not plagiarized and has not been published earlier;

• the authorship of the research work must accurately reflect the contribution of individuals to its implementation and description;

• authors are required to provide information about commercial organizations that supported the research or publication, and about any other conflicts of interest that may affect the content of the manuscript;

• researchers must comply with the requirements for the design of a scientific article, as well as provide the editors with all the necessary information to design the title of the article (metadata for entering the article into databases) – see Guide for authors.

EQUATOR Network Recommendations

When describing the results of studies (randomized and observational, reviews and meta-analyses, case reports), authors should be guided by the recommendations of the International Initiative Group for Enhancing the Quality and Transparency of Health Research EQUATOR Network (Enhancing the Quality and Transparency of Health Research).

Randomized controlled studies: recommendations CONSORT, check-list is available in Russian.

Cohort studies and studies 'case-control': STROBE standards.

Systematic reviews and meta-analyses: PRISMA principles, check-list and flow-diagram are available in Russian.

Case reports: CARE recommendations, check-list and flow-diagram.

Following the principles of the EQUATOR Network will help describe how the study was conducted fully and in a structured way, as well as avoid unconfirmed results.

The recommendations of the EQUATOR Network research group are recognized by all conscientious medical Russian and foreign journals. 

Disclosure of conflicts of interest  Up ↑

The journal follows the recommendations of the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE), and information about potential conflicts of interest for each author must be provided when submitting a manuscript.

Public confidence in the peer review process and the credibility of published articles partly depends on how well conflicts of interest are handled during article writing, peer review and editing. We do not seek to eradicate competing interests: they are inevitable. Having a conflict of interest is not an ethical violation. The reader should independently evaluate the results presented in the article. If hidden competing financial or personal interests are revealed after publication, the editors of the journal act in accordance with the recommendations of the international Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).

What is a conflict of interest?

A conflict of interest occurs when an author, reviewer or editor has financial or personal relationships that interfere with the impartial perception, review, or decision to publish research results (dual obligations, competing interests or beliefs). Interests can be financial or personal. A conflict of interest arises in a relationship with an organization or other person.

Financial and personal interests

Financial relationships (employment, consulting services, shareholding, payment of royalties, paid expert opinions, patent application or patent registration, grants and other funding) are the most common cause of conflicts of interest that can undermine the credibility of the journal, authors and science as such. However, a conflict of interest can also be due to other reasons - personal relationships and beliefs (political, religious, ideological), scientific rivalry and intellectual predilections, financial and non-financial relations with organizations and funding bodies.

Who and how declares the presence or absence of a conflict of interest?

All participants of the review and publication process (authors, editors, reviewers) must disclose relationships that may lead to a conflict of interest.

Аuthors

When submitting an article, authors are responsible for disclosing any financial or personal relationships that may influence their work. All authors are required to disclose potential conflicts of interest that may be perceived as having the impact on the results or conclusions presented in the work. Information about the conflict of interest is to be indicated at the end of the article (before the list of references) under the heading "Conflict of Interest", as well as in the cover letter. If there is no conflict of interest, please indicate: "The authors declare no conflict of interest." Information about the conflict of interest is published as part of the full text of the article. Materials without accompanying information about a conflict of interest will not be sent for peer review.

IMPORTANT! Disclosure by an author of an obvious or potential conflict of interest (including the presence of a financial interest), as well as funding of scientific work and / or writing of an article by any organization, not only is NOT a reason for refusal to publish, but gives authors additional advantages in the review process and says about the responsible approach of the authors of the work to the study and publication of the results. 

Editors

Editors must not consider manuscripts if there are conflicts of interest due to competitive, collaborative or other interactions and relationships with authors. Editors should regularly publish disclosure statements about potential conflicts of interest related to journal staff obligations.

Reviewers

Reviewers must not participate in the review of manuscripts in case of conflicts of interest due to competitive, collaborative and other interactions and relationships with any of the authors, companies or other organizations associated with the submitted work. Unpublished data obtained from submitted manuscripts may not be used in personal research without the written consent of the author. Information or ideas obtained during the review and related to possible benefits must be kept confidential and not used for personal gain.

If a conflict of interest is suspected, the editors are guided by the COPE guidelines:

The reviewer suspects an undisclosed conflict of interest in the submitted article

The reader suspects an undisclosed conflict of interest in the published article

Funding  Up ↑

At the end of the article and before the bibliography, all funding sources must be disclosed under the heading "Funding". The authors describe the impact of sponsorship (if any) on study design, data collection, analysis and interpretation, article writing, and publication of the work. If the study was supported by a grant (for example, RFBR), indicate the number. If the study did not have any financial support, report it: "The study did not have sponsorship." Funding information is published as part of the full text of the article.

Appeal  Up ↑

Authors have the right to appeal editorial decisions regarding the acceptance or rejection of articles.

Appeal mechanism

1. In case of disagreement of the author with the decision of the editors regarding the acceptance or rejection of the article, the author applies to the editorial office of the journal in writing, indicating the reasons for the appeal.

2. The conflict resolution commission of the corresponding journal considers the author's appeal.

3. Changing the editorial decision regarding the article is possible in the following cases:

• the author provided additional factual results that were not taken into account during the initial review of the article;

• the author provided additional material to the manuscript, which was not taken into account during the initial review of the article;

• the author provided information about a conflict of interest that was not provided during the initial review of the article;

• the author expresses concern about a biased review.

4. In case of sufficient reasons, the conflict resolution commission of the corresponding journal makes a proposal to the editors to change or uphold the initial decision regarding the publication of the article.

5. If necessary, the editors may engage an additional reviewer to make a final decision.

6. The decision to accept or reject an article based on the results of the revision of the initial decision is made by the editors of the corresponding journal.

7. The decision of the editors based on the results of the revision of the primary decision is final and is not subject to re-appeal.

Withdrawal of articles  Up↑

Withdrawal (recall, retraction) of an already published article is an extreme measure and is used in case of disclosure of facts that were not known during the review. The editors consider the issue of retracting the publication if:

• there are obvious proofs of unreliability of the published data due to conscious actions (e.g. data falsification) or due to honest mistakes (e.g. calculation or experiment mistakes);

• conclusions were published earlier in another journal and there are no proper links, permissions and justifications of second publication (i.e. duplicate publication);

• the article is plagiarism;

• the article describes unethical research.

The main purpose of the withdrawal is to correct published information and ensure its integrity, and not to punish authors who have committed violations.

Article withdrawal mechanism

1. Authors, readers, reviewers, editors and publishing houses can initiate the withdrawal of an article by writing to the editors of the journal in which the article was published.

2. The conflict resolution commission of the corresponding journal considers the received appeal.

3. The decision to withdraw a published article is made by the conflict resolution committee of the corresponding journal, if there are sufficient facts in favor of the withdrawal.

4. The Conflict Resolution Commission notifies the initiator of the withdrawal of the article on the results of consideration of the appeal in writing.

5. If the commission decides to withdraw the article, the appropriate journal publishes information that the article has been withdrawn, indicating the metadata of the article.

6. If articles from the journal from which the article is being withdrawn are indexed by any databases, a letter is sent to these databases stating that the article has been withdrawn, indicating the reasons for the withdrawal.

Borrowing and plagiarism  Up↑

The authors must make sure that the data presented in the article is original, all studies of other authors cited in the work are accompanied by references to the primary sources and are included in the list of references.

IMPORTANT! Fragments of a borrowed text without specifying the original source are not allowed.

There are different forms of plagiarism - from presenting someone else's work as the author's to copying or paraphrasing significant fragments of someone else's work (without attribution) and claiming one's own rights to the results of someone else's research. Plagiarism in all forms is unethical and is unacceptable.

The editors of the journal check all received articles if they are unique using the antiplagiat service www.antiplagiat.ru/.In case of detection of numerous borrowings, the editors act in accordance with the COPE algorithms:

Suspected plagiarism in the submitted manuscript

Suspected plagiarism in the published manuscript

Pre- and post-print placement policy  Up↑

During the article submission process, the author needs to confirm that the article has not been published or has not been accepted for publication in another scientific journal. When linking to an article published in the journal, the publisher asks to place a link (full URL of the material) to the official website of the journal.

Articles previously posted by authors on personal or public sites that are not related to other publishers are allowed for consideration.

Conflict Resolution Commission

To resolve issues and complaints related to possible violations of the editorial ethics principles, a commission is created in the editorial office of the journal. The chairman and members of the commission are selected from among the members of the editorial board by voting of the editorial board members. The Commission considers complaints from authors, readers, reviewers, editors and publishers.

Acceptance of articles

• Submitting of articles
• Rules for authors
• Copyright
• Confidentiality

Submitting of articles

The articles should be submitted to the following address:
119049, Моscow, Leninskiy prospekt, 8, building 18
The editorial office of “Russian journal of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery” journal or by e-mail: izdinsob@yandex.ru

Cover letter form

Copyright

Authors who publish articles in our journal agree to the following terms: