- » Aim and Scope
- » Section Policies
- » Publication Frequency
- » Open Access Policy
- » Archiving
- » Peer-Review
- » Publishing Ethics
- » Founder
- » Author fees
- » Disclosure and Conflict of Interest
- » Plagiarism detection
- » Preprint and postprint Policy
Aim and Scope
The policy of the journal «Medicine and Ecology» was approved at a meeting of the editorial board of the journal (Protocol No. 3 dated 06/21/2021).
The main purpose of the journal is to familiarize a wide range of interested persons with the main results of scientific activities in the field of medicine and ecology, on a wide range of issues related to scientific research, educational and methodological work and healthcare practice.
Tasks:
- Publication of articles on topical problems in the sphere of medicine, ecology and health care. The research published in the journal covers a wide range from pilot innovation projects to the implementation of scientific developments in practice.
The journal «Medicine and Ecology» provides its pages for the publication of the results of scientific research of specialists working in various fields of medicine, ecology and health care.
A wide range of issues covered in the journal is structured in accordance with the list of permanent sections of the publication: literature reviews, ecology and hygiene, clinical medicine, theoretical and experimental medicine, healthcare organization and economics, medical and pharmaceutical education, lectures, observations from practice, anniversaries.
2. The journal serves as an information platform for major scientific-practical and scientific-educational conferences, congresses, forums and other events that take place at Karaganda Medical University. Considerable attention is paid to highlighting issues related to the general ethnic and environmental conditions of the development of pathology in the population of Central Kazakhstan.
Section Policies
Open Submissions
IndexedPublication Frequency
4 issues per year, 1 time per quarter
Open Access Policy
"Medicine and ecology" 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
Each manuscript submitted to the editorial board of the quarterly scientific and practical journal «Medicine and Ecology» must undergo a double-blind review procedure.
The manuscript of a scientific manuscript received by the editorial board of the journal is reviewed within 2 weeks by the editor-in-chief/deputy editor-in-chief and executive secretary of the editorial board of the journal for compliance with the profile of the journal, design requirements, is registered in the journal of accounting for manuscripts received by the editorial board and sent for review to specialists (doctors or candidates of sciences) who have the closest the topic of the manuscript is scientific specialization.
The editorial board of the journal attracts leading scientists in the relevant field of scientific knowledge to review the manuscripts submitted for publication. The reviewers may be members of the editorial board and/or the editorial board of the journal, as well as highly qualified external experts and practitioners. Reviewers must have Candidate of medical Sciences, Doctor of Medical Sciences or PhD degree or at least 10 years of practical experience in this field. The reviewers of the journal also include foreign reviewers who have publications in the international databases Web of Science or Scopus.
The manuscript is submitted to reviewers in electronic form without specifying the surname, position, place of work of the author. Reviewers are notified that the manuscripts sent to them are the private property of the authors and contain information that is not subject to disclosure. Reviewers are not allowed to make copies of manuscripts and transfer it to third parties. The review is conducted confidentially for the authors of the manuscripts and is of a closed nature. The review is provided to the author of the manuscript upon his written request, without signature and indication of the surname, position, place of work of the reviewer. A review indicating the author of the review can be submitted at the appropriate request of expert councils /commissions upon written request, if necessary. (Violation of confidentiality is possible only if the reviewer claims that the materials contained in the manuscript are unreliable or falsified).
The review period is determined by the executive secretary of the editorial board of the journal and is established in agreement with the reviewer, taking into account the creation of conditions for the most expeditious publication of the manuscript, but may not exceed one month from the date of receipt of the manuscript to the reviewer. The reviewer has the right to refuse reviewing within one week from the date of receipt of the manuscript and notify the editorial board of the journal in writing.
The review usually highlights the following issues: does the content of the manuscript correspond to the topic stated in the title; does the manuscript correspond to modern achievements of scientific and theoretical thought; is the manuscript accessible to readers for whom it is intended, in terms of language, style, location of the material, clarity of tables, diagrams, drawings and formulas; is it advisable to publish the manuscript taking into account previously published literature on this issue; what exactly are the positive aspects, as well as the disadvantages of the manuscript, what corrections and additions should be made by the author.
Reviewers have the right to make recommendations to the author and the editorial board on improving the manuscript. The comments and suggestions of the reviewer should be objective and principled, aimed at improving the scientific and methodological levels of the manuscript.
The final part of the review should contain reasonable conclusions about the manuscript as a whole and a clear recommendation on the expediency of its publication in the open press and contain one of the following resolutions:
- to recommend that the manuscript be accepted for publication without corrections and improvements;
- to recommend that the manuscript be accepted for publication after minor corrections and improvements;
- to recommend that the manuscript be accepted for publication in the open press after the author has eliminated the reviewer's comments, followed by sending it for re-review to the same reviewer;
- to recommend to refuse to publish the manuscript in the open press due to its non-compliance with the requirements for the scientific level of the journal (in this case, an manuscript not recommended by reviewers for publication is not accepted for reconsideration).
In case of a negative assessment of the manuscript as a whole, the reviewer must convincingly substantiate his conclusions.
If the review contains recommendations for correcting and finalizing the article, the author is sent the text of the review with a proposal to take them into account when preparing a new version of the article or to refute them (partially or completely). The article modified (revised) by the author is re-sent for review.
In case of disagreement with the opinion of the reviewer, the author of the article has the right to contact the editorial board of the journal with a reasoned request in writing to send his manuscript for review to another reviewer with appropriate arguments in the appeal. In this case, the editorial board of the journal sends the manuscript for repeated (additional) review, or provides the author with a reasoned refusal.
The presence of a positive review is not a sufficient reason for the publication of an article. The final decision on the expediency and timing of publication after reviewing is made by the editor–in-chief, and, if necessary, by the editorial board of the journal as a whole.
Publishing Ethics
This part was prepared based on the materials of the Elsevier publishing house of scientific and medical literature, as well as materials of the International Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE)
- Introduction
1.1. The publication of materials in peer-reviewed journals makes a significant contribution to the development of the relevant field of scientific knowledge. It is important to establish standards for the future ethical behavior of all parties involved in the publication, namely: Authors, Journal Editors, Reviewers and Publishers of the journal «Medicine and Ecology».
1.2. The publisher is responsible for adhering to all current guidelines in the published work.
1.3. The publisher is committed to the strictest supervision of scientific materials. Therefore, the publisher understands the responsibility for the proper presentation of materials, especially in terms of ethical aspects of the publications set out in this document.
- Duties of Editors
2.1. Decision to publish
The editor of the journal «Medicine and Ecology» is responsible for deciding on publication. The decision to publish should always be based on the reliability of the work in question and its scientific significance, as well as current legal requirements regarding defamation, copyright, legality and plagiarism.
2.2. Decency
The editor must evaluate the intellectual content of the manuscripts regardless of the race, gender, sexual orientation, religious beliefs, origin, citizenship or political preferences of the Authors.
2.3. Confidentiality
The editor and the Editorial Board of the journal «Medicine and Ecology» are obliged not to disclose information about the accepted manuscript to all persons, with the exception of Authors, Reviewers, possible Reviewers, other scientific consultants and the Publisher, without necessity. Violation of confidentiality is possible only if the reviewer claims that the materials contained in the manuscript are unreliable or falsified.
2.4. Disclosure Policy and Conflicts of Interest
2.4.1 Unpublished data obtained from submitted manuscripts cannot be used in personal research without the written consent of the Author. Information or ideas obtained during the review and associated with possible benefits must be kept confidential and not used for personal gain.
2.4.2 The editor should recuse himself from reviewing manuscripts or cooperate with other members of the Editorial Board when reviewing the work instead of personally reviewing and deciding in the event of conflicts of interest due to competitive, collaborative and other interactions and relationships with Authors, companies and possibly other organizations related to the manuscript.
2.5. Publication supervision
An editor who has provided compelling evidence that statements or conclusions presented in a publication are erroneous should inform the Publisher about it for the purpose of prompt notification of changes, withdrawal of the publication, expressions of concern and other relevant statements.
2.6. Engagement and collaboration in research
The Editor, in conjunction with the Publisher, will take appropriate action in the event of ethical claims regarding reviewed manuscripts or published materials. Such measures, in general terms, include interaction with the Authors of the manuscript and the reasoning of the corresponding complaint or request, but can also involve interaction with relevant organizations and research centers.
- Responsibilities of Reviewers
3.1. Influencing the decisions of the Editorial Board
Peer-review assists the Editor in making a publication decision and, through appropriate interaction with the Authors, can also help the Author improve the quality of the work. The publisher shares the view that all scholars who wish to contribute to publication are required to do substantial work of reviewing the manuscript.
3.2. Diligence
Any selected Reviewer who feels insufficient qualifications to review the manuscript or does not have the necessary time to complete the work within the agreed time frame must notify the Editor of the journal «Medicine and Ecology» about this and ask him to exclude him from the review process of the corresponding manuscript.
3.3. Confidentiality
Any manuscript received for review should be treated as a confidential document. This work may not be opened and discussed with anyone not authorized by the Editor.
3.4. Manuscript requirements and objectivity
The reviewer is obliged to give an objective assessment. Personal criticism of the Author is unacceptable. Reviewers should clearly and reasonably express their opinions.
3.5. Recognition of primary sources
Reviewers should identify significant published works that are relevant to the topic and not included in the bibliography of the manuscript. The Reviewer should also draw the Editor's attention to any significant similarity or overlap between the manuscript in question and any other published work within the scope of the Reviewer's scientific competence.
3.6. Disclosure Policy and Conflicts of Interest
3.6.1 Unpublished data obtained from submitted manuscripts cannot be used in personal research without the written consent of the Author. Information or ideas obtained during the review and associated with possible benefits must be kept confidential and not used for personal gain.
3.6.2. Reviewers should not participate in the review 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 associated with the submitted work.
- Obligations of Authors
4.1. Requirements for manuscripts
4.1.1. Authors of the original article should provide reliable results of the work done and an objective discussion of the significance of the study. The data underlying the work must be presented accurately. False or knowingly wrong statements are perceived as unethical behavior and unacceptable.
4.1.2. Reviews and scientific articles must also be accurate and objective.
4.2. Data access and storage
Authors may be requested to provide raw data relevant to the manuscript for review by Editors. Authors should be prepared to provide public access to this kind of information (according to the ALPSP-STM State menton Data and Data bases), if feasible, and in any case be prepared to retain this data for an adequate period of time after publication.
4.3. Originality and plagiarism
4.3.1 Authors should ensure that the complete original work is presented and, in the case of use of works or statements of other Authors, should provide appropriate bibliographic references or extracts.
4.3.2 Plagiarism in all forms is unethical and unacceptable.
4.4. Plurality, redundancy and simultaneity of publications
4.4.1. In general, an Author should not publish a manuscript largely devoted to the same research in more than one journal as an original publication. Submitting the same manuscript to more than one journal at the same time is perceived as unethical behavior and unacceptable.
4.4.2. In general, the Author should not submit a previously published article for consideration to another journal.
4.4.3. Publishing a particular type of article (eg, clinical guidelines, translated articles) in more than one journal is ethical in some cases, provided certain conditions are met. Authors and Editors of interested journals must agree to a secondary publication that necessarily presents the same data and interpretations as in the originally published work.
A bibliography of the primary work should also be presented in the second publication. For more information on acceptable forms of secondary (republishing) publications, see http://www.icmje.org
4.5. Recognition of primary sources
The contributions of others should always be recognized. Authors should cite publications that are relevant to the performance of the work presented.
4.6. Authorship of the publication
4.6.1. The authors of the publication can only be persons who have made a significant contribution to the formation of the concept of the work, development, execution or interpretation of the presented research. All those who have made significant contributions should be designated as Contributors
4.6.2. The author must make sure that all participants who have made a significant contribution to the research are represented as Co-Authors and are not cited as Co-Authors of those who did not participate in the research, that all Co-Authors have seen and approved the final version of the work and agreed to submit it for publication.
4.7. Risks, as well as people and animals that are the objects of research (For medical publications only)
4.7.1. If the work involves the use of chemical products, procedures, or equipment that may cause any unusual risk, the Author must clearly state this in the manuscript.
4.7.2. If the work involves the participation of animals or people as objects of research, Authors should make sure that the manuscript indicates that all stages of the research are in accordance with the laws and regulations of the research organizations, as well as approved by the relevant committees. The manuscript should clearly indicate that voluntary informed consent has been obtained from all people who have become the objects of research.
4.8. Disclosure Policy and Conflicts of Interest
4.8.1. All Authors are required to disclose in their manuscripts financial or other existing conflicts of interest that may be perceived to have influenced the results or conclusions presented in the work.4.8.2 Examples of potential conflicts of interest that must be disclosed include employment, consulting, shareholding, royalties, expert opinions, patent application or patent registrations, grants, and other financial support. Potential conflicts of interest should be disclosed as early as possible.
4.9. Substantial errors in published works
If the Author finds significant errors or inaccuracies in the publication, the Author must inform the Editor of the journal «Medicine and Ecology» and interact with the Editor in order to promptly withdraw the publication or correct errors. The author is obliged to withdraw the work or correct errors as soon as possible.
- Obligations of the Publisher
5.1 The publisher must follow principles and procedures to promote ethical responsibilities by Editors, Reviewers and Authors of the journal.
5.2. The publisher should support the Editors of Medicine and Ecology in reviewing ethical claims in published materials and help interact with other journals and / or Publishers if this facilitates the performance of Editors' duties.
5.3. The publisher should promote good research practice and implement industry standards to improve ethical guidelines, retirement procedures and error correction.
5.4 The publisher should provide appropriate specialized legal support (opinion or advice) if necessary.
Founder
- Non-Commercial Joint-Stock Company «Karaganda Medical University»
Author fees
Publication in the quarterly scientific and practical journal «Medicine and Ecology» is carried out in the open access according to the GoldOpenAccess model, that is, the article is available to readers on the journal's website without any financial and technical restrictions.
When publishing articles in the open access, an author's fee is charged (OpenAccessFee), which compensates for the editing costs, since access to the article is absolutely free for all persons interested in materials.
Payment for the publication is made by the authors only after passing the review procedure and a positive decision of the editorial board to accept the manuscript for publication.
Authors pay the author's fee on their own or through grants, affiliated organizations, etc.
The cost of publication is 1 000 tenge per page, printed in 14 TimesNewRoman font with double line spacing.
Payment details for the publication:
Non-profit joint-stock company «Karaganda Medical University»
IIC KZ066010191000140291
BIN 190140033600
BIC HSBKKZKX
PDC 859
BEC 16
JSC «Halyk Bank of Kazakhstan»
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
The editorial board of Medicine and Ecology journal checks the material using the Antiplagiat system when considering a manuscript. In case of numerous borrowings detection, the editor act in accordance with the COPE.
Preprint and postprint Policy
Prior to acceptance and publication in "Medicine and ecology", 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 "Medicine and ecology" 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)
