Review procedures

Clinical and Experimental Morphology

Scientific and practical perr-reviewed journal
of the Research Institute of Human Morphology


Review procedures for manuscripts submitted for publication in the 
journal "Clinical and experimental morphology"

Manuscripts are accepted for consideration only if they are prepared in accordance with our instructions to authors that are accessible from Journal of clinical and experimental morphology page on the Institute for Human Morphology site.

All papers submitted to the journal are subject to peer review. Referees are selected from the members of editorial board and associate editors, scientists and qualified persons of the Institute for Human Morphology and other institutions that have professional competence and experience in the specific scientific field in accordance with the topic of the paper. Coauthors of the paper and the employees of the unit where this work was performed should not review the manuscript.

The identity of the reviewer is kept confidential (for editorial use only).

The referee's report should ensure critical and expert review of the manuscript, its objective evaluation and well-founded recommendations.

Extended review should answer the following questions:

  • Does the paper conform to the journal's guidelines?
  • Does the title of the article match its content?
  • Is the paper appropriately formatted for Journal of clinical and experimental morphology (abstract, key words)?
  • General description and assessment of the content of the article:
  • Is the research of the scientific importance? Are the data presented scientifically sound? Is the methodology valid? What is the novelty value of the study? Are the conclusions justified by the data presented? What are implications of this paper for practice or theory?
  • What are the positive aspects of the article? What are the shortcomings of the article? What specific work is needed to make it acceptable? What opinions and general suggestions are offered to the author(s)

The final part of the review must conclude a clear recommendation on whether the manuscript should be published, published after revisions or rejected. When the review is negative, the refusal should be motivated.

Reviewers are expected to submit reviews (in electronic and printed form) within one month after reception of the manuscript.

If the reviewer accepts the article with revisions, anonymised reviewer’s comments should be passed on to the author for changes. The revised manuscript for a reexamine will be sent to the referee who requested the revision.

When the referees' opinion is in conflict with the author, the latter may provide a well-reasoned answer to the editors. The article may be sent to the same or different referees for re-review or to the editorial board to make final decision concerning the publication of the manuscript.

In case of sufficient grounds for rejection, the final decision regarding publication is taken by the editorial team. The editorial board sends the author(s) a reasoned refusal.

An editorial decision is generally reached within 3 months of submission.

Review originals are held by the editors within 5 years from the date of publication and are available on request of the expert councils of the Higher Attestation Commission (VAK).

Our journal: content of issues