The provisions for peer review of papers submitted to the journal
«Aspirantskiy Vestnik Povolzhiya»
1. Peer review of papers submitted to the editorial board of the journal «Aspirantskiy Vestnik
Povolzhiya» is carried out in order to select the most relevant and promising research works, thesis
results for the degree of Candidate of Sciences and Doctor of Sciences, reflecting current development
of such scientific fields as biomedical sciences, clinical medicine, prophylactic medicine,
pharmaceutical sciences, philosophy.
2. Peer review is obligatory for all the papers submitted to the journal «Aspirantskiy Vestnik
Povolzhiya».
3. The paper should meet the requirements for publications available on the official web-site of the
journal «Aspirantskiy Vestnik Povolzhiya» - www.aspvestnik.com
4. The paper send to the editorial office by mail (443099, Samara, 89 Chapaevskaya str., Room 513)
or by e-mail (aspvestnik@list.ru; aspirantura_samgmu@mail.ru) is registered; information about the
authors is included into the database.
5 Editor-in-chief (deputy editor-in-chief) sends the paper for peer review to a member of the editorial
board who is an acknowledged specialist in the corresponding field of science and who has had
publications on the reviewed theme during the last 3 years.
6. Peer review of the paper is done during 2 weeks; the reviewer sends the review to the editorial
board by mail or e-mail.
7. In the process of the expertise, the specialist evaluates the structure and the contents of the paper,
paying attention to the relevance and scientific novelty, practical significance of the research work,
language accuracy, reliability of the obtained results, validity of conclusions, quality of the supporting
data, style of the text, and arrangement of the list of references.
8. There is a recommendation for publication in the corresponding section at the end of the review. In
case of any objections, the paper is returned to the author for correction, after which it undergoes the
second review.
9. On receiving the review, the editorial board makes a decision whether to accept the paper, to send
it to the author for further correction or to refuse publication. A letter informing about the decision of
the editorial board is send to the authors with a copy of the review. If the article needs any correction,
taking into consideration the reviewer’s remarks, the letter contains recommendations for correction.
Motivated publication refusal based on the results of the peer review is send to the authors by e-mail.
10. The article sent by the authors to the editorial office after correction is considered according to the
standard procedure. The date of arrival of the revised version is registered.
11. In case the author does not agree with the reviewers’ remarks, independent experts from the
leading scientists working in the relevant fields may carry out the second review of the article.
12. Peer review is carried out by the members of the editorial board pro bono.
13. All the reviews are kept in the editorial office for 5 years; in case of request, a copy of the
review can be sent to the Ministry of Education and Science of the Russian Federation.
14. All the papers undergo anti-plagiary tests.
Structure of the review
1. Title of the article
2. Author (authors)
3. UDC
4. Summary (in Russian and in English)
5. Key words
6. Relevance of the subject
7. Type of the article (a review article, a description of the experimental part)
8. Accuracy of definition of the aim and the objectives of the research
9. Scientific novelty
10. Practical significance of the work
11. Characteristics of the main part
12. Justification and reliability of the given data
13. Accordance of employed methods of research to the aim and objectives of the research
14. Accordance of the contents to the title of the article
15. Style of narration (consistency, coherence, language accuracy, fluent use of terminology, adhering
to the rules of the Russian language)
16. Quality of the supporting data
17. Degree of reliability of the obtained results
18. Validity of conclusions
19. Author’s conclusion
20. Reference list (number of foreign and domestic references, their currentness, use of the Internet
sources, accuracy)
21. Comments
22. Reviewer’s conclusion
Name and surname of the reviewer
Date
«____»___________20___.