- » Aim and Scope
- » Section Policies
- » Publication Frequency
- » Delayed Open Access
- » Archiving
- » Peer-Review
- » Indexation
- » Publishing Ethics
- » Founder
- » Author fees
- » Disclosure and Conflict of Interest
- » Plagiarism detection
- » Preprint and postprint Policy
- » Principles on informed consent
- » Human Rights Policy
- » Animal rights Policy
- » Advertising policy
Aim and Scope
The Nephrology (Saint-Petersburg) Journal is a specialized scientific-practical peer-reviewed Journal.
The purpose of the Journal is to promote the development of scientific research and the dissemination of scientific knowledge on topical issues of clinical and experimental nephrology as a fundamental integrative medical science.
The objectives of the Journal are:
- Coverage of topical issues on clinical nephrology with a focus on the epidemiological and clinical particularities of kidney disease in different regions of the Russian Federation, the CIS countries and worldwide;
- Coverage of new scientific trends in experimental nephrology at the national level and worldwide as well;
- Specialization in the related areas of nephrology as an integrative science – urology, geriatric nephrology, pediatric nephrology, as well as in new interdisciplinary areas in nephrology – onconephrology, nephrocardiology, renal injury in rheumatic disease etc.;
- Dissemination of ideas and trends of the international nephrology community in Russia and the CIS countries by the coverage of the all-Russia World Kidney Day results and agreements (annually second issue of the Journal), publication of KDIGO materials and consensus on the KDIGO-page;
- Integration of high-quality scientific data obtained be scientists from Russia and CIS countries in the field of nephrology in the international scientific environment;
- Publication of national and international guidelines and recommendations on nephrology as part of the educational work of the Journal.
The audience of the Journal includes practicing nephrologists and other related medical specialists as well as scientists in nephrology and related medical fields living in Russia, CIS countries and other regions of the world. The Editorial Board accepts manuscripts corresponding to the focus and scope and policy of the Journal both in Russian and in English languages (the subsequent high-quality translation into Russian is carried out by the Editorial Board). Further plans are to publish all Journal’s content in English.
Section Policies
 Open Submissions |
Indexed |
 Peer Reviewed |
Publication Frequency
4 issues per year
Delayed Open Access
The contents of this journal will be available in an open access format 24 month(s) after an issue is published.
Archiving
- Russian State Library (RSL)
- National Electronic-Information Consortium (NEICON)
- Library of Pavlov First Saint-Petersburg State Medical University (print version)
- Electronic Scientific Library (elibrary.ru)
Peer-Review
The editorial staff of the Journal implements an independent peer review process in which neither the author(s) nor the reviewers are notified about each other's identities. All articles received by the Editorial Board are subject to double-blind peer review. The originals of the reviews are stored in the Editorial Office for 5 years (requirements of State Commission for Academic Degrees and Titles of Russian Federation , Order No. 1586, 2016) and are provided at the request of the State Commission for Academic Degrees and Titles Expert Councils.
The peer review process proceeds as follows:
1. After confirmation of receipt by the Editorial Board, the Editor-in-chief (or one of his/her deputies) determines who will personally review the article, taking into account the scientific interests and the publication activity of the reviewer (who must have publications on the subject of peer-reviewed article over the past three years). Reviewing can be performed by members of the editorial board, the editorial council or external independent experts.
2. The author or co-author of the peer-reviewed work cannot be the reviewer.
3. Reviewers are notified that the manuscripts sent to them are the private property of the authors and include confidential information. Reviewers are not allowed to make copies of received manuscripts or delegate the reviewing of manuscripts to others without agreement with the Editor-in-chief. The peer review is carried out in full confidentiality. The critical review is of a closed nature and, if necessary, is provided to the author of the manuscript without a signature or any other indication of the name, position or place of work of the reviewer.
A breach of confidentiality is possible only in the case of a reviewer's statement of unreliability or falsification of the materials contained in the manuscript.
4. The reviewer receives the text of the article without indicating the names of the authors and should submit an objective assessment of the material received within 4-6 weeks. The review period may be extended if the reviewer requests it and explains the reasons for the delay.
5. During the review, the reviewer may be guided by the relevant Elsevier recommendations (https://www.Journals.elsevier.com/healthcare-the-Journal-of-delivery-science-and-innovation/policies/guidelines-for-reviewers). In the review, particular attention should be paid to:
- general analysis of the scientific level, terminology, manuscript structure, relevance of the topic;
- assessment of the preparedness of the manuscript for publication in relation to language and style, compliance with the established requirements for the formatting of the manuscript;
- the scientific nature of the presentation, the correspondence of the methods, methodology, recommendations and research results used by the author to contemporary achievements in theoretical science and practice;
- the content of the manuscript as a whole and its individual elements (text, tables, illustrative material, bibliographic references);
- any inaccuracies or mistakes made by the author.
6. A reviewer may refuse to perform a review in cases where there is a conflict of interest that may affect the evaluation of the article.
7. After reviewing the article, the reviewer should submit to the Editor a review containing one of the following recommendations:
- accept the article in its current version;
- return the article with appropriate comments to the author for revision;
- a final decision on the article must be taken by another specialist;
- reject the article without possibility of correction.
8. If necessary, the article shall be sent back to the author(s) for revision. In this case, the date of receipt is considered to be the date of return of the revised article.
Any article sent to the author(s) for revision should be returned by e-mail in corrected form as soon as possible (but no later than 1 month). A cover letter from the authors containing responses to all the comments and explaining all the changes made to the article must be attached to the revised manuscript. If necessary, the revised article is sent again for review. If an article requiring revision following peer review is not returned by the authors within 1 month, it will be withdrawn from consideration.
9. The copies of the peer-reviews or the reasoned refusal to publish the manuscript are sent to the authors by the Editorial Board. In case of disagreement with the opinion of the reviewer, the corresponding author of the article has the right to provide a reasoned response to the Editorial Board of the Journal. According to a decision of the Editorial Board, the article can be directed for re-review by (an)other specialist(s).
10. If two negative reviews are received for an article, one of the deputies of the editor-in-chief will submit the article to a third reviewer. The final decision on the possibility of publishing all and any submitted material is taken by the Editor-in-chief of the Journal.
11. An article that has been rejected for publication by a decision of the editorial board will not be accepted for reconsideration.
12. Following a decision to accept an article for publication, the Editorial Office shall inform the author and indicate the terms of publication.
13. Manuscripts that do not conform to the Author Guidelines are not considered for publication.
14. Articles received by the editorial board are subject to mandatory testing in the “Antiplagiat” system. In case of plagiarism being detected, the article will be rejected.
15. Manuscripts and electronic data storage media will not be returned.
Indexation
Articles in "Nephrology (Saint-Petersburg)" are indexed by several systems:
- Scopus
- Russian Scientific Citation Index (RSCI)
- Google Scholar
- Socionet
- NLM Catalog
- VINITI
- WorldCat
- Cyberleninka
- EBSCO
Publishing Ethics
The Publication Ethics and Publication Malpractice Statement of the journal "Nephrology (Saint-Petersburg)" are based on the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) Code of Conduct guidelines available at www.publicationethics.org, and requirements for peer-reviewed medical journals (http://health.elsevier.ru/attachments/editor/file/ethical_code_final.pdf), elaborated by the "Elsevier" Publishing House (in accordance with international ethical rules of scientific publications) as well as on ICMJE Recommendations for the Conduct, Reporting, Editing and Publication of Scholarly Work in Medical Journals 2018 (http://www.icmje.org/recommendations/) and statements of Council of Scientific Editors (CSE) (https://www.councilscienceeditors.org).
1. Introduction
1.1. The publication in a peer reviewed learned journal, serves many purposes outside of simple communication. It is a building block in the development of a coherent and respected network of knowledge. For all these reasons and more it is important to lay down standards of expected ethical behaviour by all parties involved in the act of publishing: the author, the journal editor, the peer reviewer, the publisher and the society for society-owned or sponsored journal: "Nephrology (Saint-Petersburg)"
1.2.Publisher has a supporting, investing and nurturing role in the scholarly communication process but is also ultimately responsible for ensuring that best practice is followed in its publications.
1.3. Publisher takes its duties of guardianship over the scholarly record extremely seriously. Our journal programmes record «the minutes of science» and we recognise our responsibilities as the keeper of those «minutes» in all our policies not least the ethical guidelines that we have here adopted.
2. Duties of Editors
2.1.Publication decision – The Editor of a learned "Nephrology (Saint-Petersburg)" is solely and independently responsible for deciding which of the articles submitted to the journal should be published, often working on conjunction with the relevant society (for society-owned or sponsored journals). The validation of the work in question and its importance to researchers and readers must always underwrite such decisions. The Editor may be guided by the policies of the "Nephrology (Saint-Petersburg)" journal’s editorial board and constrained by such legal requirements as shall then be in force regarding libel, copyright infringement and plagiarism. The editor may confer with other editors or reviewers (or society officers) in making this decision.
2.2.Fair play – An editor should evaluate manuscripts for their intellectual content without regard to race, gender, sexual orientation, religious belief, ethnic origin, citizenship, or political philosophy of the authors.
2.3.Confidentiality – The editor and any editorial staff of "Nephrology (Saint-Petersburg)" must not disclose any information about a submitted manuscript to anyone other than the corresponding author, reviewers, potential reviewers, other editorial advisers, and the publisher, as appropriate.
2.4.Disclosure and Conflicts of interest
2.4.1. Unpublished materials disclosed in a submitted manuscript must not be used in an editor’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.
2.4.2. Editors should recuse themselves (i.e. should ask a co-editor, associate editor or other member of the editorial board instead to review and consider) from considering manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies, or (possibly) institutions connected to the papers.
2.5.Vigilance over published record – An editor presented with convincing evidence that the substance or conclusions of a published paper are erroneous should coordinate with the publisher (and/or society) to promote the prompt publication of a correction, retraction, expression of concern, or other note, as may be relevant.
2.6.Involvement and cooperation in investigations – An editor should take reasonably responsive measures when ethical complaints have been presented concerning a submitted manuscript or published paper, in conjunction with the publisher (or society). Such measures will generally include contacting the author of the manuscript or paper and giving due consideration of the respective complaint or claims made, but may also include further communications to the relevant institutions and research bodies.
2.7.In a case of dissenting opinion regarding the published materials the comments could be taken on a consideration and possible further publishing in the “Discussion and information” section.
3. Duties of Reviewers
3.1.Contribution to Editorial Decisions – Peer review assists the editor in making editorial decisions and through the editorial communications with the author may also assist the author in improving the paper. Peer review is an essential component of formal scholarly communication, and lies at the heart of the scientific method. Publisher shares the view of many that all scholars who wish to contribute to publications have an obligation to do a fair share of reviewing.
3.2.Promptness – Any selected referee who feels unqualified to review the research reported in a manuscript or knows that its prompt review will be impossible should notify the editor of "Nephrology (Saint-Petersburg)" and excuse himself from the review process.
3.3.Confidentiality – Any manuscripts received for review must be treated as confidential documents. They must not be shown to or discussed with others except as authorised by the editor.
3.4.Standard and objectivity – Reviews should be conducted objectively. Personal criticism of the author is inappropriate. Referees should express their views clearly with supporting arguments.
3.5.Acknowledgement of Sources – Reviewers should identify relevant published work that has not been cited by the authors. Any statement that an observation, derivation, or argument had been previously reported should be accompanied by the relevant citation. A reviewer should also call to the editor’s attention any substantial similarity or overlap between the manuscript under consideration and any other published paper of which they have personal knowledge.
3.6.Disclosure and Conflict of Interest
3.6.1.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.
3.6.2. 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.
4. Duties of Authors
4.1.Reporting standards
4.1.1. Authors of reports of original research should present an accurate account of the work performed as well as an objective discussion of its significance. Underlying data should be represented accurately in the paper. A paper should contain sufficient detail and references to permit others to replicate the work. Fraudulent or knowingly inaccurate statements constitute unethical behaviour and are unacceptable.
4.1.2. Review and professional publication articles should also be accurate and objective, and editorial 'opinion’ works should be clearly identified as such.
4.2.Data Access and Retention – Authors may be asked to provide the raw data in connection with a paper for editorial review, and should be prepared to provide public access to such data (consistent with the ALPSP-STM Statement on Data and Databases), if practicable, and should in any event be prepared to retain such data for a reasonable time after publication.
4.3.Originality and Plagiarism
4.3.1. The authors should ensure that they have written entirely original works, and if the authors have used the work and/or words of others, this has been appropriately cited or quoted.
4.3.2. Plagiarism takes many forms, from ‘passing off’ another’s paper as the author’s own paper, to copying or paraphrasing substantial parts of another’s paper (without attribution), to claiming results from research conducted by others. Plagiarism in all its forms constitutes unethical publishing behaviour and is unacceptable.
4.4.Multiple, Redundant or Concurrent Publication
4.4.1. An author should not in general publish manuscripts describing essentially the same research in more than one journal of primary publication. Submitting the same manuscript to more than one journal concurrently constitutes unethical publishing behaviour and is unacceptable.
4.4.2. In general, an author should not submit for consideration in another journal a previously published paper.
4.4.3. Publication of some kinds of articles (eg, clinical guidelines, translations) in more than one journal is sometimes justifiable, provided certain conditions are met. The authors and editors of the journals concerned must agree to the secondary publication, which must reflect the same data and interpretation of the primary document. The primary reference must be cited in the secondary publication. Further detail on acceptable forms of secondary publication can be found at www.icmje.org.
4.5.Acknowledgement of Sources – Proper acknowledgment of the work of others must always be given. Authors should cite publications that have been influential in determining the nature of the reported work. Information obtained privately, as in conversation, correspondence, or discussion with third parties, must not be used or reported without explicit, written permission from the source. Information obtained in the course of confidential services, such as refereeing manuscripts or grant applications, must not be used without the explicit written permission of the author of the work involved in these services.
4.6.Authorship of the Paper
4.6.1. Authorship should be limited to those who have made a significant contribution to the conception, design, execution, or interpretation of the reported study. All those who have made significant contributions should be listed as co-authors. Where there are others who have participated in certain substantive aspects of the research project, they should be acknowledged or listed as contributors.
4.6.2. The corresponding author should ensure that all appropriate co-authors and no inappropriate co-authors are included on the paper, and that all co-authors have seen and approved the final version of the paper and have agreed to its submission for publication.
4.7.Hazards and Human or Animal Subjects (based on WMA Declaration of Helsinki – Ethical Principles for Medical Research Involving Human Subjects)
4.7.1. If the work involves chemicals, procedures or equipment that have any unusual hazards inherent in their use, the author must clearly identify these in the manuscript.
4.7.2. If the work involves the use of animal or human subjects, the author should ensure that the manuscript contains a statement that all procedures were performed in compliance with relevant laws and institutional guidelines and that the appropriate institutional committee(s) have approved them. Authors should include a statement in the manuscript that informed consent was obtained for experimentation with human subjects. The privacy rights of human subjects must always be observed.
4.8. Disclosure and Conflicts of Interest
4.8.1. All authors should disclose in their manuscript any financial or other substantive conflict of interest that might be construed to influence the results or interpretation of their manuscript. All sources of financial support for the project should be disclosed.
4.8.2. Examples of potential conflicts of interest which should be disclosed include employment, consultancies, stock ownership, honoraria, paid expert testimony, patent applications/registrations, and grants or other funding. Potential conflicts of interest should be disclosed at the earliest possible stage.
4.9. Fundamental errors in published works – When an author discovers a significant error or inaccuracy in a published work, it is the author’s obligation to promptly notify the editor of «Nephrology» journal and cooperate with Publisher to retract or correct the paper, If the editor or the publisher learn from a third party that a published work contains a significant error, it is the obligation of the author to promptly retract or correct the paper.
5. Duties of the Publisher (and if relevant, Society)
5.1. Publisher should adopt policies and procedures that support editors, reviewers and authors of "Nephrology (Saint-Petersburg)" in performing their ethical duties under these ethics guidelines. The publisher should ensure that the potential for advertising or reprint revenue has no impact or influence on editorial decisions.
5.2. The publisher should support "Nephrology (Saint-Petersburg)" journal editors in the review of complaints raised concerning ethical issues and help communications with other journals and/or publishers where this is useful to editors.
5.3. Publisher should develop codes of practice and inculcate industry standards for best practice on ethical matters, errors and retractions.
5.4. Publisher should provide specialised legal review and counsel if necessary.
Founder
Educational autonomous non-profit organization Nephrology (ANO Nephrology)
Founders of ANO Nephrology:
- Association of Nephrologists of the Russian Federation
- First Pavlov Saint-Petersburg State Medical University
- NPO «Nephron»
https://journal.nephrolog.ru/jour/about/journalSponsorship
Author fees
The Journal of Nephrology does not pay royalties. Publication of an article in the Journal Nephrology in compliance with all of the above rules is free of charge for authors and institutions in which they work except the following cases:
- For the publication of colour illustrations (15,100 rub. for 1 page).
- In the event of a large quantity of illustrative material (over 8 illustrations) (15,100 rub. for 1 page containing illustrative material).
- For the articles which include any advertisement material (22,990 rub. for 1 page).
Disclosure and Conflict of Interest
In the policy of disclosure and conflicts of interest, the editorial board of the Journal of Nephrology is based on the guide for the development or revision of the policy related to conflict of interest (including financial), disclosure of conflict of interest and access to data prepared by the Council of Science Editors (http: //cseditors.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/retreat_paper_2005-02.pdf).
Unpublished data obtained from manuscripts submitted for consideration cannot be used in personal research without the written consent of the Author. Information or ideas obtained during the review process and related to possible benefits must be kept confidential and not used for personal gain.
In the event of potential conflicts of interest due to competitive, joint and other interactions and relationships with any of the Authors, companies or other organisations associated with the submitted work, reviewers so affected may not participate in the examination of manuscripts.
Plagiarism detection
"Nephrology (Saint-Petersburg)" 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
In the process of submitting an article, the author must confirm that the article has not been published or accepted for publication in another scientific journal. When referring to an article published in the Nephrology (Saint-Petersburg) Journal, the publisher requests that a link be placed (full URL of the material) on the official website of the Journal.
Submitted articles containing materials previously placed by the authors on personal or public websites that are not related to other publishers may be considered for publication. In some cases, by agreement between the Authors and the Editorial Board, articles previously published in other journals may be accepted for publication under a reprint license.
Principles on informed consent
The journal "Nephrology (Saint-Petersburg) Journal" relies on the principles of the World Medical Association's (WMA) policy statement - the Declaration of Helsinki - a statement of Ethical Principles for Medical Research Involving Human Subjects) and endeavours to ensure compliance with ethical and data collection standards for research involving human subjects. Before beginning research, the researchers should familiarise themselves with the principles of the Helsinki Declaration on informed consent and carry out the research in strict accordance with those principles as set forth below (Articles 25-32 of the Helsinki Declaration are given):
25. Participation by individuals capable of giving informed consent as subjects in medical research must be voluntary. Although, it may be appropriate to consult family members or community leaders, no individual capable of giving informed consent may be enrolled in a research study unless he/she freely agrees.
26 In medical research involving human subjects capable of giving informed consent, each potential subject must be adequately informed of the aims, methods, sources of funding, any possible conflicts of interest, institutional affiliations of the researcher, the anticipated benefits and potential risks of the study and the discomfort it may entail, post-study provisions and any other relevant aspects of the study. The potential subject must be informed of his right to refuse to participate in the study or to withdraw his consent to participate at any time without reprisal. Special attention should be given to the specific information needs of individual potential subjects as well as the methods used to deliver the information.
After ensuring that the potential subject has understood the information, the physician or another appropriately qualified individual must then seek the potential subject's freely-given informed consent, preferably in writing. If the consent cannot be expressed in writing, verbal consent must be formally documented and witnessed.
All medical subjects should be given the option of being informed about the general outcome and results of the study.
27. When seeking informed consent for participation in a research study, the physician must be particularly cautious when the potential subject is in a dependent relationship with the physician or may consent under duress. In such situations, the informed consent must be sought by an appropriately qualified individual who is completely independent of this relationship.
28. For a potential research subject who is incapable of giving informed consent, the physician must seek informed consent from his legally authorised representative. These individuals must not be included in a research study that has no likelihood of benefit for them unless it is intended to promote the health of the group represented by the potential subject, the research cannot instead be performed with persons capable of providing informed consent, and the research entails minimal risk and burden.
When a potential research subject who is deemed incapable of giving informed consent is able to give assent to decisions about participation in research, the physician must seek that assent in addition to the consent of the legally authorised representative. The potential subject's dissent should be respected.
30. Research involving subjects who are physically or mentally incapable of giving consent, for example, unconscious patients, may be done only if the physical or mental condition that prevents giving informed consent is a necessary characteristic of the research group. In such circumstances the physician must seek informed consent from the legally authorised representative. If no such representative is available and if the research cannot be delayed, the study may proceed without informed consent provided that the specific reasons for involving subjects with a condition that renders them unable to give 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 a legally authorised representative.
31. The physician must fully inform the patient which aspects of their care are related to the research. The refusal of a patient to participate in a study or the patient's decision to withdraw from the study should never adversely affect the patient-physician relationship.
32. For medical research using identifiable human material or data, such as research on material or data contained in biobanks or similar repositories, physicians must seek informed consent for its collection, storage and/or reuse. There may be exceptions where consent would be impossible or impractical to obtain for such research. In such situations, the research may be done only after consideration and approval of a research ethics committee.
Human Rights Policy
When presenting the results of experimental research involving human subjects, the authors should indicate whether the procedures performed adhered to the ethical standards prescribed in the Declaration of Helsinki. If the study was conducted without adherence to the principles of the Declaration, the authors should justify the chosen approach to the study and guarantee that the ethics committee of the organisation in which the study was conducted approved the chosen approach.
Animal rights Policy
When conducting an experimental study on animals, the autors must indicate compliance with institutional and national standards for the use of laboratory animals (CONSENSUS AUTHOR GUIDELINES FOR ANIMAL USE: http://www.veteditors.org/consensus-author-guidelines-on-animal-ethics-and-welfare-for-editors)
Advertising policy
Advertising Policy of the Journal is based on Recommendations on Publication Ethics Policies for Medical Journals WAME.
Many scientific journals receive income form advertising or reprints, which is almost always associated with the emergence of a potential conflict of interst. Editors’ decisions should not depend on the cost of advertising or reprint printing. The functions of the editor and advertising manager of the Journal should be separated. Advertisers and sponsors should not have control over editor’s decisions, regardless of advertising conditions or other agreements.
All advertisement must uniquely identify the advertiser and the product or service offered. In drug advertising the full name of the each active ingredient must be indicated.
Commercial advertising should not be placed next to any editorial or article that discusses the advertised product, nor should it contain links to the issue of the Journal in which it is published.
Advertising content should be different from editorial and other materials so that the difference between them is obvious.
Advertising must not be deceiving or misleading. Advertising should not exaggerate the actual characteristics of the product. Advertising should not contain offensive considerations of a religious, racial nature.
Advertised products should focus on medical practice, medical education or medical care.
Nephrology (Saint-Petersburg) Journal could refuse any advertisement that is incompatible with its mission or inconsistent with the values of members and could stop accepting any advertisement previously accepted. Advertisings must be reviewed by the editors. The following categories is prohibited: alcohol, tobacco, weapons, fireworks, gambling and lottery, pornography or related themes, political and religious advertisements, advertisements that claim to have a “miracle” cure or method, advertisements that make unsubstantiated health claims for the products advertised, advertisements directed at children. Advertisers are required to submit supporting documentation to substantiate claims. For products not regulated by the government agency, technical and/or scientific documentation is required. For on-line presentation advertising of books, scientific works, meeting are only allowed.
