Aim and Scope

The goal of the journal is to publish the latest developments in radiation diagnosis and therapy.

The main objective of the journal is to search for articles containing up-to-date and reliable information about the results of research and original observations on clinical issues and new technologies, reviews, and meta-analyses on the topics of current medical importance.

The journal accepts to publish articles on original investigations, meta-analyses, reviews, case reports, and expert articles on the following topics:

• introduction of new methods and improvement of existing ones in radiation diagnosis, which are aimed at screening and early diagnosis of cancers, as well as monitoring the results of treatment and early detection of relapses;
• non-invasive cardiovascular diagnostic techniques that are aimed at early detection and prevention in order to reduce overall mortality and disability;
• emergency radiology and musculoskeletal system diseases;
• neuroradiology, including functional studies of the central nervous system;
• diagnostic methods in urology and urological oncology;
• diagnosis and treatment methods, including screening and monitoring of long-term treatment results in breast and female reproductive system diseases;
• physical foundations and contrasting methods for improving the art of conducting research and reducing radiation exposure, as well as the safety of using contrast agents;
• the latest research methods in ultrasound diagnosis;
• the latest developments in the radiation therapy of cancers and the consequences and side effects of radiation therapy;
• intervention medicine, radioisotope diagnosis in oncology, cardiology, etc.

The journal is also interested in publications on new computer-assisted visualization techniques, including artificial intelligence and machine learning, augmented reality for surgical planning and computer-assisted robotic surgery, mobile and televisualization, radiomics, image integration, and modeling with other information related to radiation diagnosis.

The journal is primarily published for practicing roentgenologists and radiologists, residents, postgraduate students, and physicians of related specialties as a source of information about the latest methods in radiation diagnosis and radiation therapy, as well as for basic and clinical scientists in order to exchange research results.

The entire international roentgenology and radiology community, including basic and clinical academic researchers, physicians, residents and postgraduate students, and practitioners of related specialties who write articles in Russian and English, is welcome.

The journal publishes results from researches conducted in the leading specialized research institutes and centers of Russia and CIS countries.

The Editorial Board of the journal is looking forward to the published materials being useful for the development of world science in radiation diagnosis and therapy.

Section Policies

ORIGINAL RESEARCH

Open Submissions

Indexed

Peer Reviewed

CASE REPORTS

Open Submissions

Indexed

Peer Reviewed

REVIEWS

Open Submissions

Indexed

Peer Reviewed

SERVICE ORGANIZATION BEAM DIAGNOSTICS

Open Submissions

Indexed

Peer Reviewed

CHRONICLE

Open Submissions

Indexed

Peer Reviewed

LЕCTURES

Open Submissions

Indexed

Peer Reviewed

CLINICAL PRACTICE GUIDELINES

Open Submissions

Indexed

Peer Reviewed

GUIDELINES

Open Submissions

Indexed

Peer Reviewed

EVENTS

Open Submissions

Indexed

Peer Reviewed

Publication Frequency

6 issues per year

Open Access Policy

"Journal of radiology and nuclear medicine" 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

The Editorial Board of the journal “Journal of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine” makes a mandatory expert examination of all manuscripts submitted for consideration, which correspond to the journal profile and are drawn up in accordance with the Instruction for Authors.

The journal “Journal of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine” has accepted double-blind (anonymous) peer review (the author and a peer reviewer do not know the surnames of each other).

Composition of the corps of peer reviewers

The peer reviewers are the specialists recognized in the journal’s subject area, such as radiation diagnosis and therapy, who have made a contribution to the development of radiology and have the degree of Candidate of Science and Doctor of Science and publications during the last 3 years on the topic of a peer-reviewed manuscript, as well as those who do not have scientific, financial or any other relationships with the authors of a manuscript and with the Editorial Board of the journal. The specialists working in the same department of a university or a research institution where the work has been done are not involved in the peer review.

When selecting a reviewer to work with a manuscript, priority shall be given to external experts; however, if necessary, the manuscripts can be submitted for peer review to the members of the Editorial Board, the evaluation procedure itself does not change. The articles by the Editor-in-Chief are reviewed by external peer reviewers.

Selection of peer reviewers and provision of high-quality expertise

The Editorial Board of the journal “Journal of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine” regularly assesses the quality of submitted peer reviews and gives recommendations to experts to improve the quality of peer reviews. All peer reviewers are familiar with the peer-review policy of the journal “Journal of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine” and with the criteria for evaluating articles, with the recommendations of leading publishing organizations for reviewing.

The review procedure is confidential. The peer reviewers are notified that the submitted manuscripts are the intellectual property of the authors and relate to the information that is not subject to disclosure. The peer reviewers are not allowed to use manuscripts for their own needs. Anonymity and confidentiality may be breached only in case of a statement of unreliability or falsification of materials. The unpublished data obtained from the submitted manuscripts cannot be used.

The editorial board shall cease to collaborate with peer reviewers if there has been a repeated failure to comply with the time limits for the preparation of a peer review, if a bad peer review has been prepared, or the principles of publication ethics and business communication ethics are violated.

Refusal to review

The peer reviewer has the right to refuse to review a manuscript for any reason. The refusal must be notified to the Executive Secretary as soon as possible by sending an e-mail to the Editorial Office edition@russianradiology.ru

The reviewer has the right to refuse to review the manuscript for any reason. The refusal must be notified to the Executive Secretary as soon as possible, by sending an e-mail to the Editorial office edition@russianradiology.ru.

Review deadlines

The average peer review period is about 4 weeks. The deadline may be extended depending on the situation and the reviewer’s request.

The peer review procedure involves the following steps:

1. The Executive Secretary of the journal examines a manuscript for compliance with the profile and specialization of the journal “Journal of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine”, for the basic requirements available on its website in the section “Instructions for authors”, as well as verifies the presence and amount of borrowings in the article, by using the program “Antiplagiat”.

The examination is made within 5 working days.

According to the results of the examination:

• the article is sent to a peer reviewer, if there are no comments;
• the article is sent to its author for revision (in cases where the Article Submission Guidelines has been violated;
• the author is informed about the refusal in case of non-compliance with the profile (specialty) of the journal, а well as if the check in the Antiplagiat system has shown a considerable proportion of violations, such as multiple publication, fan mailing, there cannot be an informal borrowing, as well as formal, but completely or duplicating other documents in sections, such as Results, Discussion, Conclusion (including self-citation). Formal borrowing may be used in the Introduction that is a review of previous studies by the author himself/herself and/or other specialists, in the description of methods and procedures, and in the list of references.

The peer reviewer’s final decision

Based on the results of the examination of the manuscript, the peer reviewer can make the following decisions:

• the article is recommended for publication. In this case, the peer review procedure is completed;
• the article is recommended for publication provided that the manuscript undergoes minor revision. In this case, the first step in the peer review process is accomplished. In these cases, the peer reviewer writes his/her recommendations and notes that a second peer review process is not required;
• the article is recommended for publication provided that the manuscript undergoes significant revision with a second peer review process. In this case, the first step in the peer review process is finished. The second step of peer reviewing begins after the author submits the manuscript with the changes made. Re-reviewing the manuscript takes about 2 weeks;
• to refuse to publish the manuscript. In this case, the peer review procedure is completed.

The reasons for publication rejection after peer review are incorrect or incomplete statistics; false result interpretation; inadequate or insufficient scientific instruments; an insufficient sample size or its bias; a hard-to-read text; an incorrect problem statement; inaccuracy or insufficiency of presented data; an insufficient, inaccurate or irrelevant literature review; insufficiency of given data; incorrect tables or figures, etc. In conclusion, the peer reviewer justifies his/her decision and makes recommendations to the authors.

Procedure for informing authors about the results of peer reviewing

• After receiving a peer reviewer’s positive opinion, a copy of the peer review is sent to the corresponding author. The letter states that the article has been accepted for publication and enqueued. The date of putting the article in queue for publication is the date of sending a letter stating that the article has been accepted for publication and put in queue.
• If a recommendation is made to refine the article (without re-reviewing), a copy of the peer review with the peer reviewer’s comments is sent to the corresponding author. The author prepares a new version of the manuscript and posts to the Editorial Office by e-mail edition@russianradiology.ru. The Executive Secretary checks whether all the recommendations of the peer reviewer are included in the article. Based on the review results, the corresponding author is sent a letter stating that the article has been accepted for publication and put in queue, or about the need to make changes in accordance with the peer reviewer’ recommendations. The date of putting the article in queue for publication is the date of sending a letter stating that the article has been accepted for publication and put in queue.
• If a recommendation is made to refine the article (without re-reviewing), a copy of the peer review with the peer reviewer’s comments is sent to the corresponding author. The author prepares a response to the peer reviewer and modifies the article according to the comments. The manuscript with the corrections made should be sent by the authors to the Editorial Office by e-mail edition@russianradiology.ru no later than 4 weeks after receiving the peer review, together with a cover response letter to the peer reviewer. The submitted article is re-reviewed.
• After receiving a peer reviewer’s negative review, a copy of the review is sent to the corresponding author.

Appeal

In case of disagreement with the peer reviewers’ opinion, the authors have the right to give a reasoned response to the Editorial Board of the journal and to request a second peer review. The article may be sent for additional consideration to an independent external expert or the Editorial Board members. Also, in case of disagreement with the peer reviewers’ opinion, the authors can withdraw the article, which must be notified to the Editorial Board of the journal. The authors of articles who have received a negative expert opinion, in case of manuscript revision they have the right to re-submit and re-consider the articles in a general manner. The final decision is made by the Editor-in-Chief in conflict situations.

The Editorial Board and the Editor-in-Chief make a decision on publication periods for the manuscript that has received a positive expert evaluation. The Editorial Board headed by the Editor-in-Chief approves the list of the articles to be published in the current issue of the journal in accordance with the subject matter of the issue and the order of acceptance for printing. The final decision on the content of the issue is made by the Editor-in-Chief or his/his deputy.

The following is not accepted for publication:

• the manuscripts that do not meet the journal’s requirements for manuscripts;
• if the authors refuse the technical revision of the manuscript;
• the manuscripts, the authors of which do not follow the peer reviewers’ comments, without providing a reasoned response.

The Editorial Board of the journal sends copies of the peer reviews to the Russian Science Citation Index (RSCI) Library and to the Ministry of Education and Science of the Russian Federation upon appropriate request.

The Editorial Board of the journal keeps the peer reviews for five years. 

The Editorial Board does not keep the rejected manuscripts. The manuscripts accepted for publication are not returned.

Recommendations for peer reviewers

The main criterion for evaluating scientific publications included in the RSCI is the peer review of articles. Reviews are protected by copyright, so the Editorial Board of the journal “Journal of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine” enters into a License Agreement with a peer reviewer for the use of the text of peer reviews. You can read the terms of the agreement here.   

The evaluation of the quality of the peer review will serve as a basis for further journal indexing in the RSCI or for its termination. The journal “Journal of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine” has accepted double-blind (anonymous) peer review (the author and the reviewer do not know the surnames of each other), so only the peer review text will be published in the public domain, the peer reviewer will be closed. Information about the peer reviewer will be uploaded to the RSCI system. Participation in the peer review of articles is taken into account in the profile of a scientist in the Science Index.

The editorial board of the journal “Journal of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine” publishes recommendations for peer reviewers in open access in order to improve the quality of expert evaluation and to inform the authors about the structure and content of a peer review.

The peer reviewer must objectively assess a manuscript. Personal comments to the author(s) are unacceptable. The peer reviewer must clearly and reasonably express his/her opinion.

If the manuscript does not meet one or several criteria, the peer reviewer indicates in the peer review that it is necessary to revise and refine the manuscript, and provides suggestions to the author in improving the manuscript (by indicating the inaccuracies and errors made by the author).

If possible, the peer reviewer should identify important published works that correspond to the topic and are relevant to the peer-reviewed manuscript, which are not included in the manuscript references. Any statement (observation, conclusion, or argument) previously published in the manuscript must have a corresponding bibliographic reference. Any peer review statement that some observation, conclusion, or argument from the peer-reviewed manuscript has previously been encountered in the literature must be accompanied by an accurate bibliographic reference. The peer reviewer should draw the Editor-in-Chief’s attention to the identification of substantial similarities or coincidences between the manuscript under consideration and any other previously published work.

The Editorial Board expects the peer review procedure to assist:

• in preventing the publication of low-quality articles;
• in making sure that the data given in the article are correct, are presented in a sufficient volume and in accordance with the accepted international standards, where applicable: CONSORT, STROBE, PRISMA, CARE, STARD (http://www.equator-network.org);
• in checking whether the article contains references to previous most important works in its area;
• in verifying the correctness of the author's interpretation of the data obtained and the validity of the conclusions;
• and, on this basis, in making a decision on the publication of the manuscript and in giving the authors recommendations for its improvement (where necessary).

The peer review is made in a free form, with mandatory coverage of the following provisions:

1. Relevance of the topic
2. The originality of a research, the novelty of the findings
3. Completeness and correctness of presenting the problem in the literature review
4. Clarity of the goals and objectives of a research, their compliance with the actual material presented
5. Completeness of the description of materials and methods, compliance of the description with the EQUATOR standards for the type of study under consideration
6. Adequacy of the choice of research methods
7. Adequacy of statistical analysis
8. Compliance of the results with the set research goals
9. Evaluation of the findings
10. Validity of conclusions
11. Scientific significance of research results
12. Practical significance of research results
13. Visual presentation of the material (tables, figures)
14. Comparison of the author’s own data with literature data
15. Necessary links to all relevant publications on the topic of a research
16. Quality of an abstract and correctness of choosing keywords
17. Compliance of research with ethical standards, no conflicts of interest
18. Correctness of reflecting the results in the conclusions, if any.
19. For clinical cases: completeness of describing their clinical presentations, instrumental and laboratory research methods, analysis correctness.

The final part of the peer review should contain reasonable conclusions about the article as a whole, as well as a clear recommendation about the expediency of its publication in the journal or the need for its revision, namely:

• the article is recommended for publication;
• the article is recommended for publication provided that the manuscript undergoes minor revision. Re-reviewing is not required.
• the article is recommended for publication provided that the manuscript undergoes significant revision with a second peer review.
• to refuse to publish the manuscript. It is necessary to specify the reason for publication refusal.

These recommendations are based on the materials of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), the Guide for Reviewers (Elsevier), as well as the collection of translations, “Preparation and publication of a scientific journal. International Practice on the Ethics of Editing, Peer Reviewing, Publishing, and Authorship of Scientifc Publications. A Collection of Translations” O.V. Kirillova. Moscow: Financial University, 2013. 140.

Indexation

Publications in the journal “Journal of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine” are included in the citation index calculation system for authors and journals.

The journal is indexed in the following systems:

• Russian Science Citation Index  
• The Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ)
• Google Scholar
• Dimensions
• Scopus indexing in 1946, from 1953 to 2008, from 2010 to 2016 (2010-2016)  
• VINITI (All-Russian Institute of Scientific and Technical Information)
• WorldCat
• CAS

The purpose of backup is to prevent the loss of information from hardware and software failures, in critical and crisis situations, etc.

The following main categories of information shall be backed up:

• authors’ personal information (personal directories on file servers);
• pdf of published articles;
• information about literary references to an article in the Digital Object Identifier (DOI) system

All this information is publicly available in the system of the Russian Science Citation Index on the website of the Scientific Electronic Library www.elibrary.ru

Publishing Ethics

Introduction

Duties of an Editor

1. General obligations and responsibilities of an editor
2. Relations with readers
3. Relations with authors
4. Relationships with peer reviewers
5. Relations with the members of the Editorial Board
6. Relations with the owners of the journal and a publisher
7. Editing and peer review processes
8. Quality assurance
9. Personal data protection
10. Promoting ethical research (for example, in human and animal studies)
11. Actions in case of suspicions of misbehavior
12. Ensuring scientific validity in publications
13. Intellectual property
14. Encouraging discussions
15. Complaints
16. Commercial considerations
17. Conflicts of interest

Duties of a peer reviewer

1. 1. Impact on editorial decisions
2. Diligence
3. Confidentiality
4. Manuscript requirements and objectivity
5. Recognition of original sources
6. Disclosure policy and conflicts of interest

Responsibilities of authors

1. Reliability and soundness
2. Honesty
3. Balance
4. Originality
5. Transparency
6. Authorship and references
7. Accountablity and responsibility
8. Adherence to peer review and publication agreements
9. Responsible reporting of research involving humans or animals
10. Conflicts of interest
11. Essential errors in published works

Duties of a Publisher

The Conflict Resolution Commission

The Editorial Board of the Journal of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine is guided in its work by the international ethical rules of scientific publications, which imply the rules of diligence,  confidentiality, supervision of publications, consideration of possible conflicts of interest, etc. In its activities, the Editorial Board follows the recommendations of the Committee on Publication Ethics and also relies on the experience of reputable international journals and publishers.

The Journal of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine adheres to the principles and requirements of the following organizations:

1. The Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE)
2. The World Association of Medical Editors (WAME)
3. The International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE)
4. The Council of Science Editors (CSE).

The Editorial Board of the journal is fully responsible for compliance with the principles set out in this regulation.

The publication of materials in peer-reviewed journals is not only a simple way of scientific communications, but also makes a substantial contribution to the development of the relevant field of scientific knowledge. It is very important to establish ethical behavior standards for all parties involved in the act of publishing, namely: authors, journal editors, peer reviewers, a publisher, and the scientific community of the journal.

Duties of an Editor

1. General obligations and responsibilities of an editor

1.1. The editor of the scientific Journal of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine is responsible for everything published in the journal (except for advertising and information materials). This means that the editor must: 

1.2. Strive to meet the needs of readers and authors.

1.3. Strive to improve his journal.

1.4. Have a working process that contains the procedures assuring the quality of the materials to be published.

1.5. Protect the freedom of opinions.

1.6. Remain true to the principles of research honesty.

1.7. Not allow commercial interests to compromise intellectual and ethical standards.

1.8. Always be ready to publish corrections, explanatory notes, refutations (withdraw articles), and apologies when necessary.

1.9. Ask for advice from readers, peer reviewers, and Editorial Board members how to improve their journal.

1.10. Encourage research on the efficiency of peer review processes, as well as publish the working processes accepted in the journal, and re-evaluate them in the light of new discoveries.

1.11. Try to convince the publisher to provide the necessary resources and help from experts (e.g. designers, lawyers).

1.12. Encourage initiatives aimed at reducing misbehavior when conducting studies and preparing publications.

1.13. Encourage initiatives to train publication ethics researchers.

1.14. Ensure that any press releases issued by the Journal of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine correctly reflect the contents of articles and do this in the correct context.

2. Relations with readers

2.1. Readers should be informed about those who has funded the study or any other research, as well as whether the sponsors have played any role in the research and publication of its results, and if so what role was.

2.2. The editor of the scientific journal “Journal of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine” should ensure that all published articles and reviews are peer reviewed by specialists having the necessary qualifications (including statistical analysis, where necessary).

2.3. The editor guarantees readers that the information published in the journal is reliable, unbiased, and disengaged by the interests of advertisers or other organizations.

2.4. The editor provides readers with information about the authors of published materials and the affiliations where the research has been conducted and informs readers about the participation of commercial organizations and their role in performing the research or preparing publications, and about any other conflicts of interest that may affect research results.

The editor considers complaints from readers about the materials published in the journals and informs the readers about the measures taken. Comments and wishes to improve the quality of journal can be published in its section “Letter to the Editor”; if errors are found, the Editorial Board shall take measures for their correction or removal.

3. Relations with authors

3.1. The editor of the scientific journal “Journal of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine” has the right to accept or reject articles for publication in the journal, basing on the peer reviewers’ opinion on the relevance, originality, and reliability of the information contained in the article, and its compliance with the subject matter of the journal and the principles of its editorial ethics. The final decision on whether to publish the article is made by the members of the Editorial Board and the Editor-in-Chief of the journal. The decision to publish is based on the reliability of the work in question and its scientific significance. Each article shall be peer reviewed according the peer review procedure adopted by the Editorial Board (see the Peer review section). The peer reviewers have every opportunity to freely express motivated critical comments on the level and clarity of presenting the submitted material, its compliance with the profile of the journal, the novelty and reliability of results. The peer reviewers’ recommendations are the basis for making a final decision on the publication of the article. Responsibility for the publication decision rests entirely with the journal editor. The editor evaluates manuscripts solely on their scientific contents, regardless of authors’ race, gender, sexual orientation, religious beliefs, ethnicity, citizenship, and political views and makes a decision on publication, being guided by the policy of the journal, taking into account the current copyright legislation.

3.2. The editors should not reverse the decision to publish articles unless there are serious problems with their publication.

3.3. A new editor of the scientific journal “Journal of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine” should not cancel the article publication decisions made by the previous editor unless there are serious problems with their publication.

3.4. The procedure for peer reviewing articles by other researchers should be clearly formulated and the editor of the scientific journal “Journal of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine” should be ready to justify any significant deviation from the described procedure.

3.5. In case of article rejection, the authors are notified of its reasons and are given recommendations to correct them why the article has been rejected.

The authors are given the opportunity to appeal the decision of the Editorial Board if the article has been rejected.

3.6. The editor of the scientific journal “Journal of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine” must publish full requirements for the authors of articles. These rules should be regularly updated and have a link or a hyperlink to the COPE Code.

3.7. The editor should announce the criteria used to determine who can be considered to be the author of an article and who can be deemed to be the person who has contributed to the article in accordance with the standards adopted in the relevant field.

4. Relationships with peer reviewers

4.1. The editor of the scientific journal “Journal of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine” must publish full requirements for peer reviewers, including the requirement to keep the peer reviewed material confidential. These rules should be regularly updated and have a link or a hyperlink to the COPE Code.

4.2. The editor must require a peer reviewer to disclose any information about possible conflicts of interest before giving his consent to peer review.

4.3. The editor should have procedures to protect the anonymity of peer reviewers. The journal “Journal of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine” uses double-blind (anonymous) peer review (the author and a peer reviewer do not know the surnames of each other).

5. Relations with the members of the Editorial Board

5.1. The editor of the scientific journal “Journal of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine” should inform the new members of the Editorial Board of all that is expected from their activities and should notify the existing members of all changes in the applied approaches and procedures.

5.2. The editor guarantees that the articles by the members of the Editorial Board are considered as unbiased as the articles of third-party authors.

5.3. The editor should determine who of the Editorial Board members is able to actively contribute to improving the management of the journal.

5.4. The editor should regularly revise the composition of the Editorial Board.

5.5. The editor must accurately explain to the members of the Editorial Board their functions and responsibilities, which include:

- to perform the functions of the journal representatives;

- to support and promote the journal;

- to search for the best authors and the best works and to take active actions in order to invite these authors to submit their articles to the journal “Journal of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine”;

- to analyze articles submitted to the journal;

- to accept assignments to write editorials, reviews, and comments on papers in their specialization.

5.6. The editor should actively participate in the meetings of the Editorial Board, periodically consult with its members (every five years) to find out their views on the work of the journal, inform them about changes in the journal’s policy, and determine goals for the future.

6. Relations with the owners of the journal and a publisher

6.1. The relations of the editor of the scientific journal “Journal of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine” with the publisher and the owners of the journal are often complex, but they should be firmly based on the principle of editorial independence.

6.2. The editor should make decisions about which articles to be published solely on the basis of their quality and proximity to the journal’s subject matter, without interference from the journal owner/publisher.

6.3. The relations between the journal owner/publisher and the editor must be clearly stated in the signed contract.

6.4. The terms of this contract must adhere to the COPE Code of Conduct for Journal Editors.

6.5. It is necessary to regularly exchange information with the journal owner and publisher.

7. Editing and peer review processes

7.1. The editor of the scientific journal “Journal of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine” must ensure that the peer review of articles proposed for publication is honest, unbiased, and timely.

7.2. The editor should use procedures that ensure the confidentiality of materials submitted to the journal during the peer review process.

7.3. The Editor-in-Chief and all editorial staff have no right to disclose information about the submitted works to anyone other than the respective authors, peer reviewers, other editorial consultants and, if necessary, the publisher. The editor and the editorial staff have no right to use the materials of an unpublished manuscript in their own research without the written consent of the author.

8. Quality assurance

8.1. The editor of the scientific journal “Journal of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine” should take all reasonable steps to assure the quality of their published material, by taking into account that the journal and its sections may have different goals and standards.

8.2. The editor should use procedures for detecting falsified data (e.g. improperly processed photos) and the anti-plagiarism system to all submitted articles.

9. Personal data protection

9.1. The editor of the scientific journal “Journal of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine” must comply with the law on preservation of confidentiality in the jurisdiction to which it belongs. In addition, in any case he must always protect the confidentiality of individual information obtained during research and other professional activities (for example, in physician-patient communication). In particular, it is always necessary to obtain written consent for publication from persons who may recognize themselves or be recognized by others (e.g. from clinical case reports or photographs). It is possible that personal information is published without explicit consent if the public interest outweighs any possible harm; it is impossible to obtain consent and a reasonable person would most likely not object to the publication. 

10. Promoting ethical research (for example, in human and animal studies)

10.1. The editor of the scientific journal “Journal of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine” should make efforts to ensure that the studies, the report on which he is publishing, have been conducted in accordance with the internationally recognized ethical guidelines (e.g. the Declaration of Helsinki for Clinical Research; the American Educational Research Association (AERA) ethical standards (http://www.aera.net/AboutAERA/Default.aspx? menu_id=90&id=222) and the British Educational Research Association (BERA) ethical guidelines (http://www.bera.ac.uk/publications/guidelines; and the American Psychological Association ethical principles (http://www.apa.org/ethics/code/index.aspx).

10.2. The editor should try to obtain confirmations that the published studies have been approved by the appropriate body (e.g. the research ethics committee or the supervisory board, if any, of an institution). Nevertheless, the editor should be aware that such approval does not guarantee that the research is ethical.

10.3. If there are reasonable doubts, the editor should be ready to request evidence of appropriate research permissions and to question authors about ethical aspects (such as how research participant’s consent has been obtained or what methods have been used to minimize animal suffering).

10.4. The editor should check whether the reports of clinical trials cite their compliance with the Declaration of Helsinki (World Medical Association Declaration of Helsinki: http://www.wma.net/e/ethicsunit/helsinsi.htm), Good Clinical Practice:  http://www.emea.europa.eu/pdfs/human/ich/013595en.pdf) and other relevant guidelines that protect the interests of participants in experiments.

10.5. The editor should check whether the reports of animal studies cite their compliance with the US Department of Health and Human Services Guide for the Care and Use of Laboratory Animals:  http://www.nap.edu/readingroom/books/labrats/) or other relevant guidelines.

11. Actions in case of suspicions of misbehavior

11.1. The editor of the scientific journal “Journal of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine” must take certain measures when he suspects misbehavior or learns about its accusation. This obligation applies to both published and unpublished materials.   

11.2. The editor should not simply refuse to publish articles if there are suspicions of possible misconduct. He must respond ethically to such situations.

11.3. The editor should follow the COPE flowcharts where applicable (http://publicationethics.org/flowcharts).

11.4. First of all, the editor should seek clarification from the authors of these articles. When getting an unsatisfactory response, he should contact their employer or relevant affiliation and ask to conduct an investigation.

11.5. The editor should take all reasonable steps to properly conduct the investigation, if this fails, the editor should do everything possible to resolve the problem.

12. Ensuring scientific validity in publications

12.1. Errors or misleading statements should be corrected as soon as possible, by notifying this to a wide audience.

12.2. When articles are retracted, the editor of the scientific journal “Journal of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine” must follow the COPE flowcharts (COPE retraction guidelines: http://publicationethics.org/files/u661/Retractions_COPE_gline_final_3_Sept_09_2_.pdf).

13. Intellectual property

13.1. The editor of the scientific journal “Journal of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine” must be attentive to intellectual property-related the issues and interact with the publisher in resolving the possible violations of laws and agreements on intellectual property protection. 

13.2. The editor must use the Antiplagiarism program in the articles proposed for publication.

13.3. The editor must support the authors whose copyright has been violated or those who have become a victim of plagiarism.

13.4. The editor must be ready to work together with the publisher to protect copyright or to prosecute infringers (e.g. by submitting requests for the retraction of articles or the removal of materials from websites), regardless of whether this case is related to copyright infringement in the journal.

14. Encouraging discussions

14.1. The editor of the scientific journal “Journal of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine” should encourage and readily consider a reasonable criticism of the works published in their journal.

14.2. The authors of the criticized materials should be able to respond to criticism.

14.3. The works reporting only negative results can also be published.

14.4. The editor should be open for studies that challenge the previous works published in the journal.

15. Complaints

15.1. The editor of the scientific journal “Journal of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine” must respond quickly to incoming complaints and do everything possible to ensure that there is a way for people who are dissatisfied with the consideration of their complaints, and advance his complaints further. This mechanism must be clearly described in the journal and should include information on how to refer unresolved matters to COPE. 

15.2. The editors must follow the procedures described in the COPE flowcharts.

16. Commercial considerations

16.1. The journal “Journal of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine” must apply a policy ensuring that commercial considerations do not affect editorial decisions.

16.2. The policy of the journal “Journal of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine” in relation to the interaction between advertising and the content of the journal and in relation to the publication of sponsored articles is formulated in the Advertising Policy section.

16.3. Multiple copies are published exactly in their original form, except in cases where it is necessary to amend the text. In this case, it should be possible to identify the corrected places.

16.4. The editor ensures that both the paid and unpaid articles published in the journal should also undergo peer review.

16.5. The editor ensures that sponsored articles should be accepted only on the basis of their quality and interest to readers rather than commercial considerations.

17. Conflicts of interest 

17.1. In a conflict of interest, as a result of competitive, cooperative or other relations and communications with one of the authors, companies, or institutions related to submitted manuscripts, the editor gives the manuscript for consideration to another member of the Editorial Board. The editor should request disclosure of existing competing interests from all participations involved in the process. If competing interests have been revealed after publication of the article, the Editorial Board is obliged to ensure that amendments should be published. The Editor-in-Chief and other co-editors should recuse themselves from reviewing any manuscripts in conflicts of interest due to repetitive, joint, and other interactions and relationships with authors, companies, and other organizations related to the manuscript.

17.2. The journal “Journal of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine” has approved the following mechanism to submit and peer review articles from the Editor-in-Chief, staff, and members of the Editorial Board: the article by the Editor-in-Chief, staff, and members of the Editorial Board undergoes all peer review stages in accordance with the peer review policy. The Editor-in-Chief’s scientific publications are peer reviewed by external peer reviewers who are engaged by the Deputy Editor-in-Chiefs to provide an unbiased review of the Editor-in-Chief’s scientific publication.

Duties of a peer reviewer

The peer review of scientific articles by other researchers plays an oversize role in ensuring objectivity in research and the latter is reliably informed. Expert evaluation assists the Editor-in-Chief and the Editorial Board in making editorial decisions and through the cooperation of the editor and the author can assist the latter in improving his work. This process is largely based on trust and requires that all its participants behave responsibly and ethically. The peer reviewers play a central role in this process, but often approach this work without any supervision and may not be aware of their ethical obligations.

1. Influence on editorial decisions

Peer review assists the Editor in making a publication decision and through appropriate interaction with authors, can also assist the author in improving the quality of the work. Peer review is the essential link in formal science communications, which is at the very heart of a scientific approach. A publisher shares the view that all scientists who want to contribute to the publication are required to do substantial work on peer reviewing the manuscript.

2. Diligence

Any selected peer reviewer feeling not enough qualification for consideration of a manuscript or not having enough time to quickly complete the work must notify the editor of the journal “Journal of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine” and ask to exclude him from the process of a respective manuscript being reviewed.

3. Confidentiality

Any manuscript received for peer review should be considered as a confidential document. This work cannot be opened and discussed with any individuals who are unauthorized by the editor.

4. Manuscript requirements and objectivity

The peer reviewer is obliged to give an objective assessment. Personal criticism of the author must be avoided. The peer reviewers should clearly and reasonably express their opinions.

5. Recognition of original sources

Peer reviewers should identify significant published works that are relevant to the topic and not included in the references to the manuscript. Any statement (observation, conclusion, or argument) published earlier must have a corresponding entry in the reference list of the manuscript. Peer reviewer should also draw an editor’s attention to the discovery of a significant similarity or coincidence between the manuscript in question and any other published work that is in the peer reviewer’s scientific competence.

6. Disclosure policy and conflicts of interest

6.1. The unpublished data from the submitted manuscripts cannot be used in personal research without the author’s written consent. Information or ideas that are obtained during the peer review and associated with possible benefits should be kept confidential and not used for personal gain.

6.2. Peer reviewers must not participate in the consideration of manuscripts in the event of conflicts of interest due to competitive, joint, and other interactions and relationships with any of the authors, companies, or other organizations related to a presented work.

Responsibilities of authors

1. Reliability and soundness

1.1. The research to be published must be conducted in accordance with ethical and legal norms [See also the Singapore Statement on Research Integrity), www.singaporestatement.org].

1.2. The research to be published should be carried out qualitatively and carefully.

1.3. Researchers should use appropriate methods for data analysis and presentation.

1.4. Authors are collectively responsible for their work and the content of the publication. Researchers should check their publications carefully at all stages to ensure that all their methods and results are reported accurately. Authors should carefully check all calculations, data presentations, their made documents, and proofs.

1.5. The authors of articles summarizing the results of original investigations (hereinafter referred to as original articles) should provide reliable results of the work done and an objective discussion of the significance of the research. The work should contain enough details and bibliographic references for possible reproduction. False or deliberately erroneous statements are perceived as unethical behavior and are unacceptable.

Reviews and other scientific articles should also be accurate and objective.

2. Honesty

2.1. Authors should present their results honestly and without fabrication, falsification, or unfair manipulation of data. Editing images for publication (for example, micrographs, radiographs, and electrophoresis images) should not create the likelihood of misleading the reader.

2.2. Authors should strive to describe their methods and to present their findings clearly and unambiguously. Authors should follow the applicable reporting guidelines. Publications should provide sufficient information so that other researchers can repeat the experiments made.

2.3. Reports of research should be complete. They should not omit inexplicable facts, inconsistent data, or inconvenient findings or results that do not support the theories or hypotheses of the authors or sponsors of a research.

2.4. Research funders and sponsors should not have the right to veto publication of findings that do not favor their products or position. Authors should not enter into agreements that permit the research sponsors to veto or control the publication of the findings (unless there are exceptional circumstances, e.g. the research is classified as secret at the government level).

2.5. Authors should alert the editor promptly if they discover an error in any submitted, accepted, or already published work. Authors should cooperate with editors in editing or shortening the work when required.

2.6. Citations and references to other works should be accurate and carefully designed.

2.7. Authors should not copy from other publications the references to works that they themselves have not read.

3. Balance

3.1. New findings should be presented in the context of previous research. The works of other scientists should be fairly represented. Reviews and conclusions from existing research should be complete, balanced, and should include findings regardless of whether they support the hypotheses and interpretations being proposed by the author of the publication or not. Journals should make a clear distinction between the scientific articles and the editor’s columns, and the articles presenting a subjective point of view.

3.2. All limitations accepted during a study should be reflected in publications.

4. Originality

4.1. Authors should adhere to publication requirements that submitted work is original and has not been previously published elsewhere in any language. The work may not be submitted concurrently to several journals unless the publishers have agreed to co-publication. If an article is co-published, this fact should be made clear to readers.

4.2. Applicable copyright laws and conventions should be followed. Copyright materials (e.g. tables, figures, or extensive quotations) may be reproduced only with appropriate permission of their respective owners.

4.3. Publication should refer to its related previous works by both other researchers and the author’ own and be done correctly and accurately. The original source must be cited where possible.

4.4. The authorship of data, text, figures, or ideas that the author received from other sources must be mentioned, and they should not be presented as belonging to the author of the publication. Original wording taken directly quotes from works by other researches should appear in quotation marks with appropriate citations.

4.5. Authors should notify publishers if their proposed data for publication have previously been published elsewhere, or if any interpretations of these data are sent to other publishers. In this case, authors must provide copies of related publications or works submitted to other journals.

4.6. Multiple publications arising from a single research project should be clearly identified as such the primary publications should be referenced. Translations and adaptations for different audiences should be clearly identified, should have links to the original source, and should comply with the relevant copyright conventions and permission requirements. If there are doubts, authors should seek permission from the original publisher before republishing any work.  

4.7. Authors must recognize the contribution of other individuals who have influenced the nature of the research presented. It is mandatory to have bibliography references to the works used. Information obtained privately as in conversation, correspondence, or discussion with third parties should not be used without an open written permission from their source. The bibliography of the primary work should also be presented in the second publication. More detailed information about the acceptable types of repeated publications can be found on the page www.icmje.org.

4.8. An author should not publish a manuscript devoted mostly to the same research in more than one journal as an original publication. Submitting the same manuscript to more than one journal simultaneously is perceived as unethical behavior and is unacceptable.

An author should not submit a previously published article for consideration in another journal. If the elements of a manuscript were previously published in another article, authors are required to refer to their earlier work and to indicate whether there is an essential difference between the new work and previous one. Verbatim copying of their own works and their paraphrasing are unacceptable; they can only be used as a basis for new conclusions.

5. Transparency

5.1. All sources of research funding, including direct and indirect financial support, supply of equipment or materials, and other types of support (such as the assistance of statistical data processing specialists or technical writers) should be specified.

5.2. Authors should provide information about the participation of the research sponsor (if any) in the research design, execution, analysis, interpretation, and reporting.

5.3. Authors should provide information about financial and non-financial interests and relationships that might affect the interpretation of their findings, as well as the information that may be significant for publishers, reviewers, or readers. This includes any relations of an author with the   journal, for example, if publishers publish their own research in their own journal. In addition, authors must follow journal and institutional requirements for disclosing competing interests.

5.4. If the research and/or preparation of the article had financial support, its source should be indicated. If there has been no financial support, its absence should be stated. This information should be presented in the article in Russian and English in the section “Financing/Funding” (see the Article Design Rules).

6. Authorship and references

6.1. The research literature contains not only information of what has been discovered, but also of who have made these discoveries. The authorship of research publications should therefore accurately reflect individuals’ contribution to the research and its reporting.

6.2. In cases where major contributors are listed as authors while those who have made less substantial, or purely technical, contributions to the research or to the publication are listed in an acknowledgement section; the criteria for authorship should be agreed at the start of the project. Responsibility for the correct attribution of authorship lies entirely with the authors themselves, acting in accordance with the rules adopted in their institution. Research institutions should promote and uphold fair standards of authorship and acknowledgement. Where appropriate, these institutions should resolve disputes over authorship issues while ensuring that a due procedure is followed.

6.3. Authors should ensure that only those individuals who meet the authorship criteria (i.e. they have made a substantial contribution to the work) are considered as authors, and that the researchers worthy of authorship will not be excluded from the list of authors.

6.4. All authors should agree to be listed and should approve the submitted and edited version of the publication. Any changes to the author list should be approved by all authors, including any who are removed from the list. The corresponding author should act as a point of contact between the publisher and the other authors. He should inform co-authors and involve them in making decisions on publication issues (e.g. in the case of responding to comments from peer reviewers).

6.5. Authors should not mislead readers, by publishing acknowledgments to individuals who have not, in fact, been involved in the work or given an endorsement.

7. Accountability and responsibility

7.1. All authors should read and be well familiar with the work submitted for publication and should ensure that this work follows the principles set out in these guidelines. In most cases, authors take joint responsibility for the integrity of the research and its reporting. However, if authors take responsibility only for certain aspects of the work and the published material; this should be specified in the publication.

7.2. Authors should work together with editors or publishers to correct their works promptly if errors or omissions are discovered after publication.

7.3. Authors should abide by the relevant conventions, requirements, and regulations to make materials, reagents, software, or datasets available to other researchers who request them. Researchers, research institutions, and funders should have a clear policy for considering such requests. Authors must follow relevant journal standards. If acknowledgment is offered, researchers should not demand authorship as a condition for providing materials.

7.4. Authors should respond appropriately to post-publication comments and published correspondence. They should attempt to answer the peer reviewers’ questions and provide necessary clarifications and additional information, where needed.

7.5. Authors may be asked for raw data related to the manuscript for peer review. Authors should be ready to provide open access to this kind of information (according to the ALPSP-STM Statement on Data and Databases), if feasible, and in any case be ready to store these data for an adequate time period after publication.

8. Adherence to peer review and publication agreements

8.1. Authors must follow publishers’ requirements that the work should not be proposed to more than one publication at the same time.

8.2. Authors should inform the editor if they withdraw their work from peer review, or prefer not to respond to a peer reviewer’s comments after receiving conditional consent to publication.

8.3. Authors should respond to a peer reviewer’s questions professionally and promptly.

8.4. Authors should respect a publisher’s request for press embargo and should not allow their findings to be reported in press if their article has been accepted for publication (but it has not yet been published) in a scholarly publication. Authors and their research centers should liaise and interact with publishers to coordinate media activities (e.g. press releases or press conferences) around publication. Press releases should accurately reflect the content of the work and should not include data outside the research findings.

9. Responsible reporting of research involving humans or animals

9.1. Appropriate approvals, licenses, and registrations should be obtained before the beginning of a research, and information about this should be included in the research report (e.g. the approval of the expert council of an organization and the research ethics committee, permission of the national licensing authorities for the use of animals).

9.2. In his work, an author relies on the provisions of the World Medical Association (WMA) Declaration of Helsinki – Ethical Principles for Medical Research Involving Human Subjects) and seeks to ensure compliance with ethical norms and rules for data collection for research that is conducted with the participation of people.

9.3. When presenting the results of experimental studies with humans, authors should indicate whether the performed procedures comply with the ethical standards prescribed in the Declaration of Helsinki. If the study was conducted without taking into account the principles of the Declaration, authors must justify the chosen approach to conducting the study and must ensure that the ethics committee of an organization, in which the study was conducted, has approved the chosen approach.

9.3.1. When conducting an experimental study on animals, an author is bound to indicate its compliance with institutional and national standards for the use of laboratory animals”, as well as a link to the document CONSENSUS AUTHOR GUIDELINES FOR ANIMAL USE: http://www.veteditors.org/consensus-author-guidelines-on-animal-ethics-and-welfare-for-editors

9.4. If requested by an editor, authors should provide evidence that the research described in the work has received the necessary permits and conducted ethically (e.g. copies of approvals, licenses, participant consent forms).

9.5. Authors should not publish or distribute the identifiable personal data of a person, which have been collected in research without his explicit consent (or his representatives’ consent). Researchers should remember that the electronic version of the journal “Journal of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine” is freely available on the Internet, and, therefore, should bear in mind the risk of causing harm or moral damage to a non-target audience (e.g. research participants or their families who may recognize themselves in the presentation of case studies, descriptions, images or pedigrees).

9.6. The methodology of statistical data analysis should be defined at the beginning of a research; a data analysis plan for obtaining preliminary results should be prepared in advance, and they should be followed. The secondary or a posterior analysis should be clearly distinguished from the primary one and the analysis specified in the plan.

9.7. Authors should publish all meaningful research results that are important for understanding.  In particular, publication of the results of all clinical trials is an ethical norm. Publication of unsuccessful studies or experiments that reject a hypothesis may help prevent others from wasting time and resources on similar projects. If the findings from small studies and those that do not reach statistical significance can be combined to produce more useful information (e.g. by meta-analysis), then such findings should be published.

9.8. Authors should upon request provide journal editors with research protocols (e.g. for clinical trials) so that peer reviewers and editors can compare the study report with the protocol, in order to make sure that the research was conducted as planned and no important details have been omitted. Researchers should follow the relevant rules for registering clinical trials and include the trial registration number in all publications arising from the trial.

10. Conflicts of interest

10.1. In their works, all authors must disclose information about any financial and other significant conflicts of interest that may affect the study results or their interpretation.  All sources of financial support for the project must be disclosed. Authors are obliged to declare any existing or potential conflicts of interest. A conflict of interest can be considered as any situation that can affect the author of a manuscript, lead to the hiding and corruption of data, or change their interpretation. The presence of a conflict of interest among one or more authors is not a reason for refusing to publish an article. A violation occurs when this information is hidden: the authors’ hidden potential and obvious conflicts of interest, which have been revealed by the editorial board, may become a cause for the review and publication of the manuscript being rejected. This information should be presented in the article in Russian and English in the section "Conflict of interests" (see the Article Design Rules). The author is obliged to notify the editor of a real or potential conflict of interest, by including information about the latter in the appropriate section of the article. If there is no conflict of interest, the author must also inform about it. The example for wording is “The author declares that there is no conflict of interest.”

11. Essential errors in published works

11.1. If an author discovers essential errors or inaccuracies in his published work, he is obliged to immediately notify a journal editor and to interact with the latter in order to withdraw the publication as soon as possible and to correct the errors. If the editor or publisher has received information from a third party that the publication contains essential errors, the author must immediately withdraw the work or correct the errors as soon as possible.

Duties of a Publisher

The publisher must:

1. Determine the relationship between the publisher, the editor, and other parties to contractual relations.
2. Respect the right to confidentiality and privacy of personal information (e.g. for research participants, authors, and peer reviewers).
3. Protect intellectual property and copyright.
4. Promote editorial independence.

Publishers should solve the following tasks in collaboration with the editors of journals:

1. To form an effective journal policy and mechanisms for its implementation, especially in aspects, such as Editorial independence; Research ethics, including confidentiality, obtaining the necessary consents and meeting the special requirements during human and animal studies; Authorship; Transparency and honesty (e.g. regarding conflicts of interest, research funding, compliance with standards for writing articles); Peer review by colleagues and the role of the editorial board in addition to the role of an editor; Appeals and complaints.
2. To disseminate information about the journal’s policy (e.g. to authors, readers, and peer reviewers).
3. To periodically revise journal’s policy due to the appearance of new COPE guidelines, in particular.
4. To adhere to the COPE Code of Conduct and Best Practice Guidelines for Journal Editors.
5. To hold true to the principles of scientific honesty.
6. To provide assistance to the parties (e.g. institutions, grant sponsors, and government agencies) responsible for investigating cases of unfair research and publication practices and, if possible, to facilitate these issues to be resolved.
7. To publish corrections, explanations and to retract unfair articles.
8. To ensure the timely publication of the journal “Journal of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine”.

The Conflict Resolution Commission

To resolve issues and complaints about possible violations of the principles of editorial ethics, a commission is created in the editorial office of the journal “Journal of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine”. The chairman and members of the commission are selected from among the journal Editorial Board members through their election. The Commission considers complaints from authors, readers, peer reviewers, editors, and publishers.

Questions, complaints, and suggestions are sent by e-mail edition@russianradiology.ru or the editorial office phone 8-9851207006.

The policy was approved by the Editor-in-Chief on September 1, 2021

Founder

• Limited Liability Company "LUCHEVAYA DIAGNOSTIKA"
  
  
• Russian Society  of Radiology

Author fees

Publication in "Journal of radiology and nuclear medicine" is free of charge for all the authors.

The journal doesn't have any Arcticle processing charges.

The journal doesn't have any Article submission charges.

Disclosure and Conflict of Interest

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.

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.

Plagiarism detection

"Journal of radiology and nuclear medicine" use native russian-language plagiarism detection software Antiplagiat to screen the submissions. If plagiarism is identified, the COPE guidelines on plagiarism will be followed.

Preprint and postprint Policy

Prior to acceptance and publication in "Journal of radiology and nuclear medicine", authors may make their submissions available as preprints on personal or public websites.

As part of submission process, authors are required to confirm that the submission has not been previously published, nor has been submitted. After a manuscript has been published in "Journal of radiology and nuclear medicine" we suggest that the link to the article on journal's website is used when the article is shared on personal or public websites.

Glossary (by SHERPA)

Recommendations for reviewers

These recommendations are based on the materials of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), The guide for reviewers of Elsevier publishing house , as well as the collection of translations "Preparation and publication of a scientific journal. International practice on the ethics of editing , reviewing, publishing and authoring scientific publications: a Collection of translations " / Comp. O. V. Kirillova. Moscow: Financial University, 2013. 140

REVIEWER'S GUIDE

1. YOU ARE ASKED TO REVIEW

• Make sure that the article you want to review matches your experience and knowledge. The editor who contacted you may not know that you work in a narrow field, or may be only superficially aware of your work . Agree to perform only if you are competent enough to review the article.
• Avoid potential conflicts of interest a conflict of interest Does not necessarily result in a ban on your reviewing an article, but openness to the editor will allow the editor to make the appropriate decision. For example, if you work in the same Department or institution as one of the authors ; if you have previously worked on materials with the author; or if you have a professional or financial relationship with the article. This information should be specified in the response to the editor's proposal to review the article.
• Make sure that you have enough time Reviewing an article can take a significant amount of time. The time spent on reviewing can vary significantly depending on the discipline and, of course, on the type of article. Do you have enough time to carry out a thorough review within the appropriate time frame stated in the proposal?
• * Objectively evaluate what it means to accept an offer and set deadlines. The review period in the VRR magazine is up to 4 weeks. This period is controlled by the editorial Board; depending on the situation and at the request of the reviewer, it can be extended . You should inform us about your decision to accept the offer within 1-2 days. Editors will appreciate it if you notify them in a timely manner of your ability or inability to perform a review. If you refuse to review, there are no consequences. If you feel that you are not meeting the agreed deadlines, let the editor know. They may ask you to recommend another reviewer or inform you that they are willing to extend the deadline a bit (for example, if the material is highly specialized and the reviewer has difficulty finding it). As a General rule, if you know that you are not able to complete the review within the required time limit, give it up.

2. THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE REVIEW

Ethics

Plagiarism

If you suspect that the article is a significant copy of another work, please let the editor know, quoting the previous work in as much detail as possible.

Deception

 It is extremely difficult to identify a cheater , but if you suspect that the article contains false results, let the editor know.

Other ethics issues

Was the confidentiality of the medical research violated? Were the accepted standards of ethical treatment of animals or people met? In any case of dispute, you should inform the editor. Detailed information on the website (http://ethics.elsevier.com).

Privacy

Do not disclose information to others. Any manuscripts received for review should be treated as confidential documents. They are not allowed to be shown or discussed with other people, except for authorized persons on the part of the editor. Unpublished materials contained in the submitted manuscript should not be used in the reviewer's own research without the author's Express written consent. Confidential information or ideas obtained during the review process should not be disclosed and used for their own benefit. In some circumstances, you may want to get the opinion of one of your colleagues, but you should always inform the editor in advance. Most editors welcome additional comments, but any person involved in the review process should maintain confidentiality. If the review is sent to the student, the student must communicate directly with the editor.

The Journal of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine does not transmit the reviewer's data to the author. You should also not try to contact the author.

Uniqueness

Is the article original and interesting enough for publication? If she makes some kind of contribution to the Canon of knowledge? Does the article meet the standards that the magazine adheres to? Is the question being investigated important? To determine the uniqueness and suitability of an article for a journal, try to determine what percentage of the study is in. Is it in the top 25% of jobs in this area? You can perform a quick search of the literature using tools such as Scopus and see if there are reviews in this area. If the study has already been reviewed before, send links to such works to the editor.

Structure of the review

1. Relevance of the topic

2. Originality of the work, novelty of the received data

3. Completeness and correctness of the problem presentation in the literature review

4. Clarity of the goals and objectives of the work, their compliance with the presented factual material

5. Completeness of the description of materials and methods

6. Adequacy of the choice of research methods

7. Adequacy of statistical analysis

8. Compliance of the results with the set research goals

9. Availability of an assessment of the data received

10. The validity of the findings

11. Scientific significance of the results

12. Practical significance of the results

13. Visual presentation of the material (availability of tables, figures)

14. Availability of comparison of own data with literature data

15. Availability of necessary links to all relevant publications on the topic of the work

16. Resume quality and correct choice of keywords

17. Compliance of work with ethical standards

18. Whether results are correctly reflected in conclusions or conclusions, if any

19. For clinical observations: completeness of the description of the clinical picture, instrumental and laboratory research methods, correctness of the analysis.

• The final part of the review should contain reasonable conclusions about the article as a whole and a clear recommendation on whether it should be published in the journal or whether it should be improved, namely:
• the article is recommended for publication in this form;
• the article is recommended for publication, taking into account the correction of the shortcomings noted by the reviewer;
• after completion of the comments noted by the reviewer, a second review of the article is required
• it is recommended to transfer the article to another specialist for additional review;
• reject the publication.

Research data sharing policy

Providing the authors with access to the study data that substantiate the content of their publications is welcome, but is not mandatory. The authors’ consent to provide access to research data does not affect the decision to publish.

Definition of research data

Research data include any actual materials recorded on any medium, which are used to obtain study results, in a digital or non-digital form. These involve tabular data, code, images, audio and video files, documents, maps, processed and/or raw data. This policy applies to research data that may be required to confirm the validity of research results presented in the articles published in the journal “Journal of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine”. The research data include information obtained directly by the authors (“primary data”), as well as that from the other sources analyzed by the authors during the study (“secondary data”).

Definition of exclusions

This policy does not apply to research data that are not required to confirm the validity of the results presented in the published articles.

Information about data that are not to be disclosed may be transferred in the following ways: they are placed in the research data repositories with restricted access; they have been previously anonymized. The author can also make publicly available only metadata for research data and/or a description of how to access the latter at the request of other scientists.

Data storage

The preferred way for data sharing is to use data repositories. If you need help choosing a repository to host data, please see the list of repositories on the website: https://repositoryfinder.datacite.org/.

Data citation

The Editorial Board of the journal “Journal of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine” welcomes the provision of access to research data under the terms of free Creative Commons licenses. The Editorial Board does not insist on the mandatory use of the free licenses when the data are placed in third-party repositories. The publisher of the journal “Journal of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine” does not claim property rights to the author’s research data together with the article.

Letters with questions about compliance with this policy can be sent to the Executive Secretary of the journal “Journal of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine”.

Human and Animal Rights Policy

Informed consent

In its work, the journal “Journal of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine” is based on the provisions of the WMA Declaration of Helsinki - Ethical Principles for Medical Research Involving Human Subjects and strives to ensure compliance with ethical standards and data collection rules for a research conducted with the participation of people. Before starting the research, a scientist should familiarize himself with the Helsinki Declaration provisions on informed consent and do a research in strict accordance with the principles set out below (see the Declaration of Helsinki, Provisions 25-32):

25. "Participation by individuals capable of giving informed consent as subjects in research must be voluntary. Although it may be appropriate to consult family members or social group leaders in a number of cases, no individual capable of giving informed consent may be enrolled in a study unless he or she gives their own voluntary consent.
26. In medical research involving individuals capable of giving informed consent, each potential subject must be adequately informed about the aims, methods, sources of funding, any possible conflicts of interest, institutional affiliations, the anticipated benefits and potential risks of the study, the discomforts, which may arise from study participations, post-study conditions, and any other relevant aspects of the study. The potential subject in research 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 each potential subject, as well as to the methods used to deliver the information.

After ensuring that the potential subject has understood the given information, the physician or another appropriately qualified person must obtain the subject’s voluntary informed consent, preferably in writing. If the consent cannot be expressed in writing, the unwritten consent must be formally documented and witnessed.

All medical research subjects should be given the option of being informed about the general conclusions and results of the study.

27. When obtaining informed consent for a research, the physician must be particularly cautious if the potential subject is in a dependent relationship with the physician or may consent under duress. In these cases, the informed consent must be sought by an appropriately qualified person who is completely independent in this relationship.
28. If the potential research subject is an individual incapable of giving informed consent, the physician must obtain informed consent from his/her legal representative. These individuals must not be included in the research that has no likelihood of benefit for them, except when such research is done to improve health care to a group of people, whose representative is the potential subject, the research cannot be replaced by a study in individuals capable of giving informed consent and entails only minimal risks and discomforts.
29. If a potential subject recognized incapable of giving informed consent is able, however, to express his/her own attitude towards participation in research, the physician must seek his opinion in addition to the consent of the legal representative. The potential subject’s disagreement must be taken into account.
30. Research involving subjects who are physically or mentally incapable of giving consent, for example, unconscious patients, may be conducted only if the physical or mental condition that prevents giving informed consent is an integral characteristic of the research group. In these cases, the physician must seek informed consent from the legal representative. If this representative is unavailable and if patient enrollment cannot be delayed, the study may be conducted without informed consent, provided that the specific reasons for enrolling subjects with a condition that precludes 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 his/her legal representative.
31. The physician must provide the patient with complete information about which of the aspects of his/her care are relevant to the research performed. The refusal of a patient to participate in a study or his/her decision to withdraw from it must not affect the patient-physician relationship.
32. In medical research using biological materials or data that can identify the person from whom they have been obtained, for example, when studying the materials or data contained in the biobanks or similar repositories, the physician must obtain informed consent to receive, store and/or reuse these data. There may be exceptions where it would be impossible or unreasonable to obtain consent for such research. In these cases, the research may be performed only after consideration and approval by the research ethics committee.”

Human Rights Regulation

When presenting the results of experimental studies with humans, the authors should indicate whether the procedures performed comply with the ethical standards set forth in the Declaration of Helsinki. If a research has been conducted without taking into account the Declaration principles, the authors must justify the chosen research approach and ensure that the ethics committee of the organization, in which the research has been done, approves the chosen approach.

Animal Welfare Regulation

There may be the following wording: “When conducting experimental research on animals, the authors must indicate whether it complies with institutional and national standards for the use of laboratory animals", as well as a link to the CONSENSUS AUTHOR GUIDELINES FOR ANIMAL USE: http://www.veteditors.org/consensus-author-guidelines-on-animal-ethics-and-welfare-for-editors

Advertising Policy

The advertising policy of the journal “Journal of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine” is based on the WAME Recommendations on Publications Ethics Policies for Medical Journals.

The journal “Journal of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine” receives revenue from advertising and reprints. Since this creates a potential conflict of interest, the Editorial Board and the publisher carefully monitor the observance of publication ethics and ensure the following:

• The editors’ decisions do not depend on the cost of advertising or reprinting;
• The functions of an advertising editor and an advertising manager are separated in the journal;
• Advertisers and sponsors have no control over the editor’s decisions, regardless of the terms and conditions for advertising or other agreements.

Reprints are published only in the form, in which they were originally published in the journal; they contain no additions or changes.

Sponsors or advertisers do not affect the content of additional issues. All manuscripts for additional issues shall undergo a standard peer review procedure.

Articles containing advertising materials undergo a standard peer review procedure.

The volume of advertising materials does not exceed 45% of that of a single issue.

All advertisements uniquely identify the advertiser and the proposed product or service. Advertisements for medicines shall indicate the full name of each active ingredient.

Advertisements must not be deceiving or misleading. They should not exaggerate the actual characteristics of an advertised product. They must not contain offensive considerations of a religious, racial, or religious nature.

The advertised products should focus on medical practice, medical education, or health care.

A commercial advertisement is not placed next to any editorial or article that discusses the advertised product, nor do they link to the issue of the journal, in which it is put up.

The content of an advertisement is different from that of editorials and other materials; the difference between them is obvious.

The journal “Journal of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine” has the right to refuse to publish any advertising message for any reason. The decision to publish an advertisement is made only with the participation of the editor of the journal and its Editorial Board.