Publication ethics of the journal "The Bulletin of Contemporary Clinical Medicine"

After certifying that the abstract or article complies with the rules for the design of articles and abstracts, the review process begins.

Prior to the review, the responsible secretary verifies the following aspects:

The study has a scientific basis; the goals and objectives are clearly presented; the sample size is adequate; the results are adequately and clearly presented and explained.

Researchers have excluded or considered possible distorting factors.

Potential harm to the research subject is minimized or absent (ensuring confidentiality of personal data, reducing psycho-emotional and physical stress).

The benefits of the research outweigh the harms.

If the editorial board has questions about compliance with patients' rights or compliance with the laws of the Russian Federation, we have the right to require the author to obtain approval from the Ethics Committee.

We recommend that our authors follow the Singapore Statement of Research Integrity ( 

The value and usefulness of the research depend entirely on the integrity with which it is carried out. And while differences in the organization and conduct of research, determined by national and disciplinary contexts, are possible and can be encountered in practice, certain principles and professional obligations are fundamental to the integrity of research, wherever it is conducted.


Integrity in all things related to the research.

Openness of research progress and results to external scrutiny.

Professional ethics and respect for colleagues.

Professional conduct of the research for the benefit of all those likely to be affected by it.

The peer review process

Openness of publications

Before reviewing manuscripts, the responsible secretary certifies that the authors have read and understood the Rules of preparing articles and abstracts and are familiar with the journal publication ethics, as well as the author's statement, which covers the following aspects:

- Funding the publication

- Declaration of Conflict of Interest

- Permission to use materials from external sources (including the Internet) when applicable.

- Permission from patients to publish their data, and verification of censorship of identifiable patient data.

- Documented acknowledgement for any quotations from unpublished work (e.g., from a press article, conference presentation, personal conversations).

- Information about submissions of this publication to other journals.

- Confirmation that the manuscript has not been previously published

Each author signs a statement of authorship. The author is considered to be someone who participated in the development of the idea, design, processing, analysis, or interpretation of the data, corrected drafts, criticized, or approved the final version of the article. The Editorial Board has the right to request the responsibilities of each author in writing the article. As a rule, the author who has performed most of the work becomes the first author. On the other hand, it should be clarified that not every analysis and interpretation of data (for example, the description of X-rays) falls under the criterion of authorship.

To exclude the presence of "guest authors" in publications and to include "ghost authors," it is necessary to explain the role of each author in writing the article. Perhaps some authors believe that the inclusion of a person who did not participate in the writing of the article - the "guest author" - is a routine practice in the scientific world. In the opinion of the editorial board, such behavior is unethical and unacceptable, and shows the author's self-esteem and self-respect. To avoid this, we recommend discussing these issues in advance. We advise to place all persons who did not participate in the writing of the publication in the "acknowledgments" section. The converse situation is to ignore the "ghostwriter"-the technical writer who only processed the text. The fact that this author also has a conflict of interest should be declared.

Each author, but not just the corresponding author should participate in the correspondence with the editorial board (at least be in a copy of the correspondence) during the article acceptance and review process. The corresponding author is an administrative role.

The article should include information on the approval of the study by the ethics committee and informed consent in the case of human research.

Reviewers’ ethics

Reviewers in turn,

- conduct reviews objectively.

- Personal criticism of the author is not allowed. Reviewers must express their views clearly with argumentation and references whenever necessary. Reviewers must declare a conflict of interest.

- Reviewers must decline to review manuscripts in which they have a conflict of interest as a result of competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or affiliations with any of the authors, companies, or institutions.

- Reviewers should respect the confidentiality of the materials supplied and should not discuss unpublished manuscripts with colleagues or use the information in their work. If a reviewer wishes to forward a request for a review to a colleague, he or she must obtain the permission of the editor in advance.

When reviewing, the reviewer checks the following items:

- Has the work been previously published?

Was there a case of plagiarism (or self-plagiarism)? Articles are checked using search systems and the anti-plagiarism system. Self-plagiarism is considered quoting oneself word for word from previous publications.

- Are there signs of fabrication of data or misleading the reader?

- Is there any recycled text in the article?

Reworked text is a special case of auto-plagiarism - when the same paragraphs of a reworked text are repeated from publication to publication. This phenomenon is unacceptable - it reduces the quality and scientific novelty of the publication. The editorial board evaluates how much of the text has been reworked, where in the article such text appears, and whether there is a reference to the literature. It is not difficult to distinguish the borrowing of several of your own phrases from the revision of an old article. If it is a description of a technical procedure, then the recycled text, of course, cannot be avoided, but the results and conclusions of the study should not be repeated. If the reworked text is repeated by a given author in several review articles, according to the guidelines of the committee on Publication ethics (UK,, this article should be considered as auto-plagiarism. If authors do not provide a reference to their previous work, it speaks more in favor of autoplagiarism rather than bona fide misrepresentation.

Since such article clones are widespread, there are also methodological guidelines for accepting them for publication, here are a few options:

  1. authors completely rewrite the literature review at the expense of new, previously uncited sources.
  2. Authors cite their own text in quotation marks, or briefly summarize it with a MUST reference to their previous publications.
  3. Authors reduce the article to a thesis or brief communication with reference to materials and methods from the previous publication.
  4. Authors publish only calculations and results with the reference to the previous publication and compare them with similar works by other authors.

Any of these options will increase the originality and citation of the article.

If any reworked text is found in the submitted article, the editorial board will ask the authors to rewrite these sections. If any rewritten text is found in a published article, the article will be retracted or a correction will be published at the author's expense. Questions concerning the reworked text or auto-plagiarism are considered taking into account the competence of the author, age, and scientific experience.

Publication by members of the Editorial Board in the journal.

Publication by members of the Editorial Board in the journal is allowed. The process of reviewing these manuscripts occurs without authors' participation in the discussion. A member of the editorial board specifically declares his/her conflict of interest with the publisher and the editorial board; a member of the editorial board does not participate in the process of reviewing his/her own article; communication with the editorial board regarding the publication happens only through the executive secretary.

The review process is independent of the founder. All members of the editorial board have a written contract with the founder. The founder has no right to influence the review process.

Commercial publications and advertisements are reviewed on the same basis as scientific publications [3].

Rejection of manuscripts / withdrawal of articles from print

Manuscripts are rejected if:

- there are clear indications that the published data are unreliable, whether intentional or accidental.

- the data have been published before.

- there is plagiarism

- the research is unethical.

- if there is a suspicion that the investigation of the alleged misconduct associated with the publication either has not been or will not be fair and impartial or there is no convincing evidence to the contrary.

If the authors of an article change, the article will not be rejected, as long as the data are reliable.

The article rejection procedure begins as early as possible from the moment the reasons for rejection are discovered, usually at the reviewing stage. Printed articles may be withdrawn.

The process of manuscript rejection/rejection of articles from print can be initiated either by the author or by the editorial board or by another journal.

How do we deal with articles that are subject to rejection?

If there is a possibility of correction, then after all comments are corrected, the article can be accepted for publication. Articles that are rejected are mostly those with serious violations.

If the printed article has been published earlier, a note is published in the following issue with a reference to the earlier publication; in turn, the BCCM journal sends a notice to the publication where the article was published earlier. 

Cross-Referenced Articles.Articles containing part of previously published data together with the original data are not rejected if appropriate references are provided. The purpose of the rejection process is not to punish the authors, but to ensure reliable data.

Conflict of interest

Every author is required to declare a conflict of interest.

A conflict of interest arises when the primary professional interest is influenced by a secondary interest (financial gain, career advancement, encouragement of colleagues, friends, relatives, compatriots, highlighting the role of one's department, institution). The influence of the secondary interest leads to moral and ethical conflicts in relation to patients, health care workers and the scientific community as a whole.

In medicine, primary professional interests relate to the quality of medical care, the proper treatment of disease, the well-being of patients, professionalism, the unbiased and conscientious conduct of scientific research, and honest and open editorial work. Secondary interests are numerous, complex in origin, and not always easily discernible, even to experienced professionals. They may arise from a desire for financial gain from professional actions, to strengthen the position of certain scientific claims, to advance one' s career development, or to benefit family members, friends, and colleagues from the same city, country or institution, including others.

Conflicts of interest can be commercial (financial), intellectual, academic (competitive), ideological, personal, or geographical.

Most often there is a commercial conflict of interest in publishing biomedical research data. It is necessary to declare sponsorship, grants and other types of material incentives.

If there is no conflict of interest, it is necessary to declare no conflict of interest. When in doubt, the editorial board will always provide assistance. Declaring a conflict of interest helps readers critically evaluate the article, taking into account the influence of the author's secondary interests.

  1. Guidance for Editors: Research, Audit and Service Evaluations /
  3. A short guide to ethical editing for new editors /
  4. Retraction guidelines /
  5. Croat Med J. 2013;54:600-8 doi: 10.3325/cmj.2013.54.600 Armen Yuri Gasparyan1, Lilit Ayvazyan2, Nurbek A. Akazhanov3, George D. Kitas1,4 Conflicts of interest in biomedical publications: considerations for authors, peer reviewers, and editors.

Background Information:

World Copyright Convention.

Ethical considerations


All persons designated as "authors" must meet the criteria for this concept. Each author's involvement in must be sufficient to take responsibility for its content. The right to be called an author is based on the following facts:

1) significant contributions to the conception and design of the study or to the analysis and interpretation of the data;

2) preparation of the text of the article or making major changes in principle;

3) final approval of the version that goes to press.

Securing funding or selecting material for an article does not justify inclusion in an author's group. Overall leadership of the research team is also not considered sufficient for authorship.

The editors have the right to request from the authors their contribution to the article; this information may be published.

All team members who do not meet the criteria for authorship must be listed with their consent in the Acknowledgements section.

The order in which the authors will be listed is determined by their mutual decision.

Conflict of interest

A conflict of interest related to a particular manuscript arises when the author, reviewer, or editor has obligations that might influence his or her opinion (even if this does not actually happen). The most common reason for a conflict of interest is financial relationships (e.g., related to hiring, consulting, stock ownership, royalties, and paid expert opinion), direct or through close relatives. Other reasons such as personal relationships, academic rivalries, and intellectual leanings are also possible.

Participants in the review and publication process must disclose conflicts of interest.

Authors are responsible for disclosing their financial and other conflicting interests that may affect their work when submitting a manuscript. The manuscript has to include information about all persons and organizations that have provided funding as well as other financial or personal involvement. The role of the sponsor(s) in the research design, data collection, analysis, and interpretation have to be described.

Authors are required to provide the names of those who they believe should not become reviewers of the manuscript because of a possible, usually professional, conflict of interest.

Reviewers should inform the editorial board of any conflicts of interest that might affect their opinion of the manuscript; they should refuse to review a particular article if they think this is justified. In turn, the editorial board should be able to assess the objectivity of the review and decide whether to decline the services of that reviewer.

The editorial board may use the information provided in the conflict of interest and financial interest statements as a basis for making editorial decisions.

Editors who make decisions about a manuscript should not have a personal, professional, or financial interest/participation in any matter that they may decide. Other members of the editorial team, if they are involved in making decisions, should provide the editors with a description of their financial interest (as it may have an impact on editorial decisions) and decline to participate in the decision if there is a conflict of interest.

Respect for patients' rights and confidentiality

Patients have the right to privacy, which must not be disclosed without their consent. Personal information, including patient names, initials, hospital numbers, and case histories, must not be published as written descriptions, photographs, or pedigree unless the information is of great scientific value or unless the patient (or parent or guardian) provides (provides) written consent for publication. Authors should advise patients whether there is a possibility that identifiable material will be available online after publication. Authors must provide the patient's written informed consent to the editorial board to disseminate the information and report it in the article.

Protection of humans and animals in scientific research

If the article contains descriptions of experiments involving humans/ humans, the authors must indicate whether they were conducted in accordance with the ethical standards of the committee responsible for experiments involving humans/ humans (whether affiliated with an institution or nationally) and the 1975 Declaration of Helsinki and its 2000 revision. In questionable cases, authors should provide justification for their approach and evidence that the institution's review board has approved the questionable aspects of the research. When describing experiments involving animals, authors should indicate whether the requirements of the national and institutional guidelines for the maintenance and use of laboratory animals have been met.

Publication of negative results. Many studies showing negative results are in fact inconclusive. The possibility of publishing inconclusive results of studies is considered by the Editorial Board in a special manner, since often such articles have no biomedical value and waste the resources of the journal.

Multiple publications

The Editorial Board does not consider manuscripts submitted simultaneously for publication to other journals, nor papers that have already been published as an article or have become a part of another paper submitted to or accepted for publication by some other print publication or electronic media. This policy does not exclude consideration of an article previously rejected by another journal or a complete description submitted after publication of preliminary results, i.e., abstracts or posters presented at professional conferences.


Readers may send comments, questions, or criticisms of published articles to be printed in the journal, as appropriate.  If desired, the authors of the articles may respond to the comments.

* * *

Author's copies are provided; upon the issue's publication, an electronic version of the journal in pdf format is e-mailed to the responsible author with the e-mail address specified in the article. The journal can also be obtained by subscription (see the Subscription section).

The editorial board reserves the right to reduce and edit the submitted articles.

Articles whose design does not meet these requirements will not be considered. Rejected manuscripts will not be returned.

A detailed outline of the paragraphs of the "Uniform Requirements for Manuscripts Submitted to Biomedical Journals" developed by the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors, in particular on ethical issues can be viewed at

Declaration of Privacy

Authors and reviewers

Manuscripts should be reviewed with due respect for the confidentiality of the authors. By submitting their manuscripts for review, authors are entrusting editors with the results of their scholarly and creative work on which their reputation and careers may depend. Authors' rights may be violated if confidential information is disclosed during the review of their manuscript. In addition, the editor must respect the reviewers' right to confidentiality. It may be violated only to counter fraud and deception.

Editors should not disclose information about manuscripts (including their receipt, content, status during the review process, reviewer criticism, or final status) to anyone except the authors and reviewers. This includes requests for use of materials to resolve legal issues.

Editors should notify their reviewers that manuscripts sent for review contain confidential information and they are the property of the authors. Thus, reviewers and editorial staff should respect the rights of the authors and not publicly discuss the authors' work until after the manuscript is published. Reviewers are forbidden to copy manuscripts and pass them on to third parties, except when authorized by the editor. A reviewer's comments should not be published or otherwise publicized without the consent of the reviewer, the author, and the editor.

Reviewers are anonymous to the authors. If authors receive a review without the reviewer's signature, the identity of the reviewer should not be disclosed to the author or other persons without the reviewer's consent.

The reviewer's comments should not be published together with the manuscript without the consent of the authors and reviewers. At the same time, the reviewer's comments should be shared with other reviewers of the same manuscript, which facilitates their learning in the review process. In addition, reviewers can be informed about the editor's decision to accept or reject the manuscript.

Patients and study participants

Patients have the right to the protection of personal information that may not be disclosed without informed consent. Personal information, including names, initials, or case history numbers, should not be published in writing or in the form of photographs or pedigrees unless it is necessary for scientific purposes and the patient (parent or guardian) has provided written informed consent for such publication. When informed consent is obtained, the identified patient must be allowed to view the manuscript to be published. The authors must inform the patient whether personal information will be available on the Internet or in print publications after the manuscript is published. Given the relevant requirements and legislation, the patient's written consent must be retained by the journal editorial office or the authors, or both. To better protect patient confidentiality, written patient consent can be kept by the authors. In this case, authors should notify the journal editorial board in writing that they have received written informed consent from patients for safekeeping.

Irrelevant personal information should be omitted. Informed consent should be obtained in cases where there are doubts as to whether the patients' anonymity will be preserved. In particular, masking the patient's eye area in a photograph is no guarantee of anonymity. If authors modify personal data to protect anonymity, such as when describing genetic pedigrees, the absence of misrepresentation of scientific results must be ensured by the authors and verified by the editors.

Obtaining informed consent should be stated in the published article.

Electronic subscription to the journal