Aim and Scope

The journal “Medical Doctor and Information Technology” accepts original articles, reviews and analytical papers covering topics of IT in healthcare including issues of creating unified information net.

The journal “Medical Doctor and Information Technology” is a unique information source for healthcare workers as well as IT specialists to learn about latest developments in medical IT and the results of its use in real life settings.

Scope: complex computerization of medical institutions, medical registries and big data sets, statistics, geoinformation systems, telemedicine, legal framework and software for the personal data safety, electronic document management (electronic medical history, electronic passport of a medical institution), legal framework for the use of digital signatures, computer systems for health insurance, compatibility of computer programs, development of unified classifiers and reference books, opportunities of online education for doctors, legal protection of computer programs and data sets, the use of a tablet in a doctor's practice, Internet medical resources.

Section Policies

REVIEWS

Open Submissions

Indexed

Peer Reviewed

ORIGINAL RESEARCH

Open Submissions

Indexed

Peer Reviewed

PRACTICE EXPERIENCE

Open Submissions

Indexed

Peer Reviewed

EDITORIAL

Open Submissions

Indexed

Peer Reviewed

PROBLEMS AND DISCUSSION

Open Submissions

Indexed

Peer Reviewed

ЮБИЛЕИ

Open Submissions

Indexed

Peer Reviewed

Publication Frequency

4 times per year

Open Access Policy

This 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.

Archiving

• Russian State Library (RSL)
• National Electronic-Information Consortium (NEICON)

Peer-Review

1. All manuscripts submitted to the Journal undergo double-blind peer-review. Both the reviewer and author identities are concealed from the reviewers, and vice versa, throughout the review process.
2. The editors ensure the objectivity of the reviewer’s work, timely identifying cases of violations and taking measures to eliminate them.
3. Manuscripts that have passed a preliminary assessment by the editor-in-chief or executive editor for compliance with the scope of the journal and the requirements for the design of articles are subject to peer-review.
4. Manuscripts submitted to the Journal are reviewed by the members of the editorial board of the Journal (internal reviewers) and external reviewers. All reviewers are competent specialists in the subjects of papers under review and have relevant during the recent 3 years. Only external reviewers are invited to review the articles of the editor-in-chief.
5. The authors of the manuscript have the right to submit to the editorial office their proposals for reviewers candidates, as well as list the names affiliations of specialists who should not be considered as possible reviewers due to the conflict of interest.
6. Co-authors of the manuscript, head of the department or/and organization affiliated with the manuscript cannot be suggested as reviewers. If the editors are not able to find a proper reviewer for the submitted manuscript, they contact the author with a proposal to submit an external review.
7. Reviewers should not participate in the review and evaluation of manuscripts in which they are personally interested and are required to inform the editors about their conflicts of interest.
8. All reviewers are notified that manuscripts submitted to the journal are the intellectual property of the authors and refer to information not subject to disclosure.
9. Reviewers are prohibited from: using the manuscript for their own needs and the needs of third parties; disclose the information contained in the manuscript before its publication; transfer the manuscript for review to another person without the consent of the editor-in-chief.
10. The decision to appoint a reviewer for the article is made by the editor-in-chief, executive editor or deputy editor-in-chief.
11. The executive editor sends a manuscript file to the reviewer by e-mail without information about the authors of the manuscript.
12. The review period should not exceed 30 calendar days. This period is controlled by the editors; depending on the situation and at the request of the reviewer, it can be extended.
13. If it is impossible to perform a peer-review, the reviewer is obliged to inform the editorial board by reply letter within three days from the date of receipt of the manuscript.
14. The text of the review is compiled in accordance with the form approved by the editorial board. The last sentence in the text of the review should be one of the following conclusions:

- Manuscript accepted. Reviewers have no major remarks. The paper is to be handled by a proofreader, editor, and layout specialist.

- Minor revisions are required.

- Major revisions and second round of peer review are required. The corresponding author needs to revise paper and then upload revised version to the Journal’s site.

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

- Manuscript needs to be sent to another reviewer.

15. The reviewer must give an objective assessment of the manuscript, personal criticism of the author is inappropriate. The reviewer is also obliged to draw the editor's attention to the significant or partial similarity of the text of the manuscript with any other previously published articles.
16. The executive editor or deputy editor-in-chief notifies the corresponding author of the peer-review results within 5 working days from the date of receipt of the reviews. If the manuscript needs revisions, response to reviewer’s comments, or it was denied, the author is sent an anonymous copy of the review.
17. The authors respond point by point to each reviewer's comment with agreement (and an indication of the changes made to the text of the manuscript) or a reasoned answer substantiating their disagreement with the reviewer's comment.
18. If the article undergoes revision, the date of its receipt by the editors is the date when the authors return the revised article. The modified version of the article which required major revisions is re-sent for the review.
19. The same manuscript cannot undergo more than 3 rounds of peer-review.
20. 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 the reviewers face insoluble conflicts regarding the manuscript, the editorial office is eligible to send it for additional reviewing. In a conflict situation, the decision is to be made by the Editor-in-Chief.
21. Having a positive review (both initial and after the revision of the article by the authors) is not enough for an article to be accepted for publishing. The final decision is made by the editorial board based on the scientific value of the work and its relevance to the subject of the journal. In conflict situations, the decision is made by the editor-in-chief. The decision of the editorial board for each article is recorded in the editorial board meeting record.
22. The managing editor or deputy editor-in-chief are responsible for the follow-up of the manuscripts submitted to the Journal.
23. The reviews are stored in the editorial office of the journal for 5 years.
24. The journal editorial board does not store manuscripts that have not been accepted for publication. Manuscripts accepted for publication will not be returned. Manuscripts that receive a negative result from the reviewer are not published and are also not returned back to the author.

Publishing Ethics

The Publication Ethics and Publication Malpractice Statement of the journal "Medical Doctor and Information Technologies" 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: "Medical Doctor and Information Technologies"

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 a learned "Medical Doctor and Information Technologies"  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 "Medical Doctor and Information Technologies" 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 "Medical Doctor and Information Technologies" 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 "Medical Doctor and Information Technologies" 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 "Medical Doctor and Information Technologies" 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 "Medical Doctor and Information Technologies" 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 "Medical Doctor and Information Technologies" 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.

The section is prepared according to the files (http://health.elsevier.ru/attachments/editor/file/ethical_code_final.pdf) of Elsevier publisher (https://www.elsevier.com/) and files (http://publicationethics.org/resources) from Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE - http://publicationethics.org/). 

Founder

• Pirogov National Medical and Surgical Center