ISSN (p) 0030-5987
ISSN (e) 2518-1882
Publisher of the scientific journal "Orthopaedics, Traumatology and Prosthetics" responsible approach to support academic reputation, and we are closely following the conformity of published materials to the highest standards. The editors are guided by the recommendations of editorial associations on the Best Practices Guidelines of the Scientific Publications Ethics Committee (COPE), World Association of Medical Editors (WAME), International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE), Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT), Guidelines for what a Publication Ethics and Malpractice Statement should adhere to (PEMS).
Responsibilities of the Editor-in-Chief
The Editor-in-Chief estimates the scientific value of the author’s original and assigns two reviewers – independent specialists, whose specialization is the closest one to the subject of the article.
The Editor-in-Chief examines suggestions of the reviewers and takes the necessary decision: to set the article in type or give the text of a review to the author with suggestion to take the recommendations into account and improve the article. The article, revised by the author, is sent for reviewing again.
The opinion of a reviewer is not final. If opinions of reviewers do not coincide, the Editor-in-Chief sends the article for additional reviewing to one more expert.
In conflict situations the decision is taken by the Editor-in-Chief.
Responsibilities of the Reviewer
The reviewer must evaluate the following parameters: originality, relevance, the purpose of the work, research methods, material and methods, that the results correspond to the purpose of the research and are presented visually (in particular, tables, figures, etc.), have significant scientific significance, that the work has significant practical significance, the assessment is given of the obtained results and possible errors, the statistical analysis was carried out adequately, there is a comparison of own data with the data of scientific literature, the article uses important publications and scientific literature of the last 5 years, the conclusions are based on the obtained results and are clearly formulated, the study was approved by the local bioethics committee in accordance with the current norms, the number and date of the protocol are indicated, the abstract is structured (up to 2,200 printed characters), the main provisions of the work are indicated in it, the article is written correctly, logically connected and thematically disclosed, the title of the article corresponds to the content.
The reviewer concludes: the article is recommended for publication in the author’s variant; the article is recommended for publication with regard for correction of specified shortcomings; it is recommended to give the article for additional reviewing to another specialist; the publication is refused with the statement of the cause.
The term of reviewing (two weeks) is specified in the Manuscript Review Chart. This term can be prolonged depending upon the situation and the request of a reviewer.
Obligations of Authors
At the request of the editors, authors must provide initial data for review, and be prepared to make this data available to the public (according to the ALPSP-STM Statement on Data and Databases) and keep it for a reasonable time after publication.
Authors must ensure that they have written the original work, the use of material or words of other authors should be in the form of a citation with a reference to the bibliography. Plagiarism in all its forms is unethical and unacceptable.
All authors must disclose in the manuscript any financial or other conflict of interest that may affect the results or interpretation of their results. Examples of potential conflicts of interest that need to be disclosed are: advice, fees, paid expertise, patent applications, and grants or other funding.