INFORMATION ON THE REVIEW PROCESS AND EDITORIAL BOARD COMPOSITION
Rules for reviewing manuscripts and deadlines for making editorial decisions:
Allergology and Immunology in Paediatrics reviews all incoming materials that correspond to its subject matter for the purpose of expert evaluation.
All reviewers are recognized experts in the subject of the reviewed materials.
The article is accepted for consideration only if it meets the layout requirements for materials submitted to the Allergology and Immunology in Paediatrics journal, published on the official website.
For articles, double-blind review and verification of the submitted data is applied if necessary.
All articles are pre-reviewed by members of the Editorial Board to determine whether the publication topic is in line with the journal’s profile (3-7 days).
Then the article is sent to 2 reviewers, one of whom evaluates the reliability of the data and methods of presenting the results, and the other reviewer gives a detailed assessment of the scientific value of the article.
The reviewer shall review the submitted article within fourteen (14) working days from the date of receipt and send to the editor (by e-mail or regular mail) either a reasoned refusal to review, or a properly executed review notice.
Reviewers shall treat the article as confidential, strictly observing the author’s right to non-disclosure before publication of the information contained in the article.
Additional experts may be engaged by the reviewer only with the permission of the Editorial Board and also on the terms of confidentiality.
The author of the reviewed paper shall be given an opportunity to read the text of the review.
The reviewer may recommend the article for publication, recommend it for publication after revision taking into account commentaries made, or not recommend the article for publication (within 14 days).
If the reviewer recommends the article for publication, then after approval by the Editorial Board, the material shall be accepted for publication the author shall be duly notified.
If the reviewer recommends the article for publication after revision taking into account the commentaries made, or does not recommend the article for publication, the review notice shall indicate the specific reasons for such decision.
If the reviewer recommends the article for publication after revision taking into account the commentaries made, the material shall be returned to the author for improvement together with the review. Upon revision, the author shall resubmit the material to the editor with an indication that the reviewer’s commentaries have been taken into account.
If the author does not agree with the reviewer’s commentaries, such a position needs to be substantiated. Upon revision, the article shall be sent for re-review (if necessary) and approval by the Editorial Board.
All issues regarding changing the original text (with the exception of technical proofreading) shall be resolved exclusively in agreement with the authors.
If the reviewer does not recommend the article for publication, the author shall be sent a reasoned refusal. If the author does not agree with the reviewer’s opinion, the article shall be sent to another reviewer. If another reviewer also does not recommend the article for publication, upon approval by the Editorial Board, the author shall be sent a final refusal to publish this material.
Brief reports, letters to the editor, reviews, discussion materials, etc. are only subject to initial expert evaluation by members of the Editorial Board, in accordance with the scientific profile of the periodical, and are not subject to external reviews.
Reviews shall be stored in the publishing office for 5 years.
The Editorial Board of the Journal undertakes to send copies of reviews to the Ministry of Education and Science of the Russian Federation upon receipt of the corresponding request.