Aim and Scope

A national scientific and practical journal with a broad focus, published by Russia's leading medical school. It is distinguished by its focus on issues relevant to Russian healthcare, an interdisciplinary approach (from psychology to care management), high ethical and editorial standards, and a practical focus on clinical cases and modern diagnostic methods.

The journal is dedicated to publishing articles in biomedical science and practice and examines, from the perspective of predictive, preventive, and personalized medicine:

cutting-edge achievements of domestic and international biomedical science;

results of scientists' own research in biomedicine and medical psychology;
results of research in healthcare management;
reviews and lectures by scientists from our University and other domestic and international medical universities in various areas of biomedicine;

The editors hope that the articles published in the journal will be of interest to specialists in various fields of medicine, as well as faculty and students of medical schools. The journal's editorial board includes leading medical experts from Russia and other countries.

Updated May 5, 2026

Section Policies

EDITORIALS

Open Submissions

Indexed

Peer Reviewed

HEALTH CARE ORGANIZATION

Open Submissions

Indexed

Peer Reviewed

ORIGINAL PAPERS

Open Submissions

Indexed

Peer Reviewed

REVIEWS AND LECTURES

Open Submissions

Indexed

Peer Reviewed

DISCUSSIONS

Open Submissions

Indexed

Peer Reviewed

PRACTICAL GUIDELINES

Open Submissions

Indexed

Peer Reviewed

BRIEF INFORMATION

Open Submissions

Indexed

Peer Reviewed

HISTORY AND PRESENT DAY EVENTS

Open Submissions

Indexed

Peer Reviewed

HISTORICAL CALENDAR

Open Submissions

Indexed

Peer Reviewed

INFORMATION ON THE SCHEDULE OF CONFERENCES, SYMPOSIA, AND CONGRESSES

Open Submissions

Indexed

Peer Reviewed

PRACTICAL GUIDELINES

Open Submissions

Indexed

Peer Reviewed

EDITORIAL

Open Submissions

Indexed

Peer Reviewed

OBSERVATION FROM PRACTICE

Open Submissions

Indexed

Peer Reviewed

Peer Review Process

PEER REVIEW POLICY

The policy was adopted by the Editor-in-Chief: March 4, 2026

The Editorial Board of the journal "The Scientific Notes of Pavlov University" adheres to COPE recommendations when handling manuscripts, working with reviewers, and organizing the peer review process.

Type of Peer Review

All manuscripts submitted to the Editorial Board of the journal "The Scientific Notes of Pavlov University" undergo mandatory double-blind peer review. This means that neither the author nor the reviewer knows each other's names or affiliations, and all correspondence is conducted through the editor of the journal "The Scientific Notes of Pavlov University". Each manuscript is sent to at least two experts.

Peer Review Timeline

The peer review process at the journal "The Scientific Notes of Pavlov University" takes on average 1 to 6 months. This period includes time for initial manuscript screening, reviewer selection, review preparation, revision by the author, re-review, and involvement of additional experts.

Peer Review Process

The decision on selecting a reviewer for the journal "The Scientific Notes of Pavlov University" is made by the editor.

Each manuscript is sent to at least two experts. If different opinions are received about a manuscript, a third expert may be involved.

The editor of the journal "The Scientific Notes of Pavlov University" may communicate one of the following decisions to the author:

• Accept for publication. In this case, the manuscript will be included in one of the regular issues of the journal and will be forwarded to the editor for further processing. The author will be notified of the publication date.
• Accept for publication after correcting the shortcomings noted by the reviewer. In this case, the author will be asked to make the corrections indicated by the reviewer within one week. Once the shortcomings are addressed or a reasoned refusal to make changes is provided, the manuscript is accepted for publication.
• Accept for publication after correcting the shortcomings noted by the reviewer and re-review. In this case, the author will be asked to make the corrections indicated by the reviewer within two weeks. The manuscript will be sent for re-review. Within 30 days, the author will receive the final decision on the manuscript's fate.
• In this case, the author will receive a reasoned refusal to publish the manuscript. Rejection does not prohibit authors from submitting manuscripts to the journal "The Scientific Notes of Pavlov University" in the future. However, if publication is refused due to gross violations by the author, the Editor-in-Chief may decide to blacklist the author. In such a case, other articles by this author will not be considered.

The Editorial Board of the journal "The Scientific Notes of Pavlov University" provides for three rounds of peer review. This means that after the first decision to revise the article, the author has two attempts to make changes based on the reviewer's recommendations or provide a reasoned refusal to do so. If, after the third round, the expert again sends comments, the journal editor will suggest that the author consider publishing in another journal or resubmit the article with the necessary changes after six months.

If the author does not plan to revise the article, they must notify the Editorial Board. Work on the article will then be terminated.

If the author has a conflict of interest with an expert who could potentially be a reviewer for the manuscript, they must inform the journal editor. The Editorial Board of the journal "The Scientific Notes of Pavlov University" will find another reviewer if necessary.

During the manuscript review process, a conflict may arise between the author and the reviewer. In such a case, the editor of the journal "The Scientific Notes of Pavlov University" has the right to appoint a new reviewer for the manuscript and involve the Editor-in-Chief to resolve the dispute.

Articles authored by the Editor-in-Chief, his deputies, the executive secretary, and members of the Editorial Board may be published in the journal "The Scientific Notes of Pavlov University", provided there is no abuse of position. Manuscripts submitted by journal staff are sent for double-blind peer review only to external experts. Only external experts are involved in resolving contradictions and conflict situations. In the event of a dispute regarding the fate of the Editor-in-Chief's manuscript, the final decision on the possibility of publishing the article is made by the members of the Editorial Board.

When publishing articles by members of the Editorial Board/Council, the Editor-in-Chief, and his deputies, the "Conflict of Interest" section must state that the authors belong to the journal's Editorial Board.

The journal "The Scientific Notes of Pavlov University" does not exempt any scientists from peer review, regardless of their status.

Copies of reviews are kept in the editorial office of the journal "The Scientific Notes of Pavlov University" for at least 5 years.

Reviewer Pool

External experts with experience in the relevant subject area and with publications on the topic of the reviewed manuscript within the last 3 years are involved in reviewing all incoming manuscripts.

If the subject of the article is very narrow, and/or the author declares a potential conflict of interest regarding review by external specialists, members of the Editorial Board and/or Editorial Council may be involved in the review.

Principles for Selecting Reviewers and Editorial Actions to Ensure High-Quality Expertise

The Editorial Board of the journal "The Scientific Notes of Pavlov University" regularly works to attract recognized experts in the field of Medicine/Биомедицина (Biomedicine) to work on the journal, as well as to ensure timely reviewer rotation.

Reviewers are invited to work with the journal upon the recommendation of the Editor-in-Chief, his deputies, members of the Editorial Board/Council, and authors.

The managing editor regularly monitors publications on the journal's subject area in Scopus, Web of Science, and RSCI databases and sends invitations to collaborate to the authors of those publications.

The first review of new reviewers is evaluated according to the following algorithm:

1. Did the reviewer comment on the importance of the issue raised in the research?
2. Did the reviewer comment on the manuscript's originality?
3. Did the reviewer identify the strengths and weaknesses of the research (research design, data collection and analysis)?
4. Did the reviewer provide useful comments on the language and structure of the article, tables, and figures?
5. Were the reviewer's comments constructive?
6. Did the reviewer provide arguments using examples from the article to justify their comments?
7. Did the reviewer comment on the author's interpretation of the results?
8. The overall quality of the review.

For each of the criteria, a score from 1 to 5 can be assigned, where 1 is the minimum score and 5 is the maximum.

If the quality of the review does not satisfy the editors, cooperation with the reviewer is terminated.

The editors of the journal "The Scientific Notes of Pavlov University" have the right to evaluate an unlimited number of reviews from all experts involved in working with the journal using the presented algorithm.

Mechanism for Involving Reviewers in Journal Work

The editors of the journal "The Scientific Notes of Pavlov University" consider peer review to be one of the most important procedures in journal management and value the experience and time of the experts involved in the review process.

Reviewers of the journal "The Scientific Notes of Pavlov University" receive the right to priority publication, as well as the translation of the text of their accepted article into English.

The names and affiliations of reviewers are published on the journal's website "The Scientific Notes of Pavlov University" in open access, without indicating which articles they reviewed.

Confidentiality

The Editorial Board of the journal "The Scientific Notes of Pavlov University" does not disclose the personal data of reviewers or authors.

Any manuscript is considered by the Editorial Board of the journal "The Scientific Notes of Pavlov University" as a confidential document. The Editorial Board expects that reviewers will not share or discuss the texts of manuscripts with third parties without the editor's consent.

Reviewers may involve third parties in reviewing only with the editor's consent.

Reviewer Responsibilities

By agreeing to review manuscripts for the journal "The Scientific Notes of Pavlov University", the reviewer agrees to adhere to the journal's policy when evaluating the manuscript, preparing the review, as well as regarding reviewer behavior and compliance with ethical requirements.

The reviewer should strive to ensure the high quality of materials published in the journal "The Scientific Notes of Pavlov University", just like the editor, and therefore should review a manuscript only if they have sufficient experience in the relevant field and sufficient time for a thorough and comprehensive assessment of the article.

The reviewer must inform the editor of a conflict of interest (personal, financial, intellectual, professional, political, or religious) if it exists. If doubts arise, the situation should be discussed with the editor.

The reviewer must decline to review if they:

• are a supervisor or subordinate of the manuscript's author, or share grants with them.
• do not plan to prepare a review but only wish to read the article text.
• are preparing their own article on a similar topic for publication.
• are reviewing an article on a similar topic.

The reviewer must inform the editor of their intention to review the article and complete the work within the deadline specified by the editor. If review is impossible for various reasons, it is advisable to recommend another expert to the editor.

The reviewer cannot use their status for personal gain or impose references to their own work on the authors.

All materials received from the journal editor are strictly confidential. The reviewer must not share the materials with third parties or involve other specialists in reviewing the manuscript without the consent of the editor of the journal "The Scientific Notes of Pavlov University".

Recommendations for Reviewers

For the reviewer's convenience, the Editorial Board of the journal "The Scientific Notes of Pavlov University" offers a form for rapid review, which includes questions, the answers to which are necessary for the editor to make a decision on the article.

The Editorial Board asks the reviewer to pay more attention to the "Comments" section to help authors improve the current and future work.

Content and Structure of the Review

This section is based on recommendations from NEICON. The Editorial Board of the journal "The Scientific Notes of Pavlov University" has received permission from NEICON to use these methodological recommendations in the journal's peer review policy.

10 criteria by which the manuscript should be assessed:

• Originality
• Logical rigor
• Statistical rigor
• Clarity and conciseness of writing style
• Theoretical significance
• Reliable results
• Relevance to current research areas
• Reproducibility of results
• Literature coverage
• Applicability of results

In addition to the rapid review form, the Editorial Board of the journal "The Scientific Notes of Pavlov University" recommends that reviewers adhere to the following review structure.

Comments for the Editor

• Conflict of Interest — describes a real or potential conflict of interest related to the content of the manuscript or its authors that could lead to biased conclusions.
• Confidential Comments — this section is intended for comments that will not be shared with the authors. It includes the reviewer's final conclusion on the manuscript's fate, the reviewer's assumptions, expressions of doubt regarding possible ethical violations, as well as recommendations and accompanying comments (e.g., the reviewer may advise the editor to request additional information from the author).
• Recommended Decision — typically a brief conclusion on the manuscript's fate (accept, accept with minor revisions, accept with major revisions, reject, reject and encourage resubmission).

Comments for the Authors

• Introduction — this section describes the main findings and the value of the article for readers.
• Major Comments — this section describes the relevance to the journal's aims and scope, the level of reliability, and ethical conduct.
• Specific Comments — the reviewer evaluates sections of the article (abstract, introduction, methods, results, discussion) or provides comments on specific pages, paragraphs, or lines.
• Recommendations to the Author — the reviewer provides recommendations to the author to improve the quality of the manuscript and, possibly, future research.
• Final Comment — a brief description of the strengths and weaknesses of the manuscript without any additional recommendations.

Manuscript Evaluation Criteria

• Relevance to the Subject Area — Do not waste time reviewing an irrelevant manuscript, regardless of its quality. First and foremost, determine whether the manuscript fits the journal's subject area and the interests of its audience.
• Validity — Does the work meet all necessary requirements in terms of research design, scientific methods, structure, content, and depth of analysis? Does it adhere to the principles of unbiased scientific research? Are the research results reproducible? Is the study sample properly constructed? Is it analyzed in sufficient detail to generalize the research results?
• Novelty — Does the conducted research bring something new to the relevant subject area?
• Ethics — Does the research meet the requirements of originality? Is it approved by an expert board (if required)? Is it unbiased regarding conflicts of interest? Regardless of the perceived significance of the manuscript, it cannot be accepted for publication if it is redundant, contains plagiarism, or violates basic ethical principles of scientific research: legality, benefit, and respect for persons.

Evaluation of Manuscript Elements

The Editorial Board of the journal "The Scientific Notes of Pavlov University" suggests using the following questions to speed up the process of preparing an expert opinion and to provide the most complete information about the article to the editor and author.

• Title — Does the title accurately reflect the content of the manuscript? Will the title attract readers' attention?
• Abstract — Is the content of the manuscript properly presented in the abstract (structured, describing objectives, methods, results, and significance)? Are there discrepancies between the abstract and the manuscript sections? Can the abstract be understood without reading the manuscript?
• Introduction — Is the introduction concise? Are the research objective and tasks clearly defined? Does the author justify the relevance and significance of the research based on a literature review? If so, does this section meet the length requirements? Does the author define terms used in the manuscript? If the manuscript is submitted to the "Original Research" section, does it contain a clearly formulated hypothesis?
• Literature Review — How comprehensive is the literature review?
• Methods — Can another researcher reproduce the study results using the described methods, or are the methods unclear? Do the authors justify their choices (e.g., visualization methods, analytical tools, statistical methods) when describing the research methods? If the authors propose a hypothesis, have they developed methods that can reasonably test it? How is the research design presented? How does the data analysis help achieve the stated objective?
• Results — Are the results clearly explained? Does the order of presenting results match the order of describing the methods? Are the results justified and expected, or unexpected? Are there results that are not preceded by a description in the "Methods" section? How accurate is the presentation of the results?
• Discussion — Is the discussion concise? If not, how could it be shortened? If a hypothesis was stated, do the authors report whether it was confirmed or refuted? If the hypothesis was not confirmed, do the authors report whether the research question was answered? Do the authors' conclusions match the results obtained during the research? If unexpected results were obtained, do the authors analyze them properly? What potential contribution does the research make to the field and to global science?
• Conclusions — Do the authors note the study's limitations? Are there additional limitations that should be noted? What is the authors' opinion on these limitations? What is the authors' opinion on the direction of future research?
• References — Does the reference list conform to the journal's format? Are there bibliographic errors in the reference list? Are the citations within the text accurate? Are there important works that are not mentioned but should be? Are there more references than necessary? Are the cited references up-to-date?
• Tables — If the article includes tables, do they correctly describe the results? Should one or more tables be added or removed? Are the data presented in the tables processed appropriately and do they facilitate, rather than complicate, the understanding of information?
• Figures — Are tables and figures an appropriate choice for the task at hand? Could the results be illustrated differently? Do the figures and graphs reliably show important results? Are changes needed to present the results more accurately and clearly? Do the captions allow understanding of the information without referring to the manuscript text?
• Conflict of Interest Disclosure — Is the funding and conflict of interest information clearly stated?

Reviewer's Final Decision

The Editorial Board of the journal "The Scientific Notes of Pavlov University" suggests using the following justifications for the reviewer's final decision.

• Accept for publication — The reviewer understands that the article is ready for publication in its current form. The article is valid, ethical, significant for the scientific community, complements already published works, and the writing style is clear and concise.
• Accept with minor revisions — The article has minor, non-critical issues that need correction. This could include poor writing style, lack of clarity, insufficiently developed structure, citation errors, or duplication of information in figures, tables, and text. After revision and reassessment, the article may be accepted for publication.
• Accept with major revisions and re-review — The article has serious flaws and errors affecting the validity of the results: problems with ethics, research design, gaps in describing methods, poorly presented or incorrectly interpreted results, insufficient description of study limitations, contradictory conclusions (or conclusions refuted by the author's own statements), lack of references to important studies, unclear tables and figures requiring major revision. After reassessment, the article may be accepted, rejected, or sent for additional review. Such a decision often requires the author to collect additional data.
• Reject — The work does not align with the journal's aims and scope, has one or more irremediable flaws, or serious ethical problems (e.g., consent not obtained when necessary, unethical research methods, discredited or erroneous methodology). In this case, the author should not submit a revised version without a specific request. The reviewer should provide detailed comments justifying their decision, as this may help the author significantly improve the work.
• Reject and encourage resubmission — The topic or research question is interesting, but the author uses incorrect or insufficiently reliable methods; consequently, the obtained data are also unreliable. Such a decision is also possible when the article requires numerous changes or when the author cannot provide the requested additional information. Authors are encouraged to conduct the research considering the recommended changes and submit the new results for consideration.

Editing of Reviews

The Editorial Board of the journal "The Scientific Notes of Pavlov University" expects reviews to be written in a respectful tone and in compliance with the rules of the Russian (and English) language. Personal attacks, insults to the author, and unfounded criticism of any aspect of the research, language, style of the manuscript, etc., are prohibited.

The Editorial Board of the journal "The Scientific Notes of Pavlov University" strives to pass reviews to authors in their original form. However, in some cases, it may be necessary to edit the text of the review without losing its meaning (e.g., when combining comments from several experts on one issue or if there are confidential comments in the section intended for the author).

The Editorial Board of the journal "The Scientific Notes of Pavlov University" has the right to send the review back to the expert for revision in case of a large number of errors or an unacceptable tone in the review.

Publication Frequency

4 issues per year

Open Access Policy

"The Scientific Notes of the I. P. Pavlov St. Petersburg State Medical University"  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

A double-blind peer review method is mandatory for processing of all scientific manuscripts submitted to the editorial stuff of "The Scientific Notes of the I. P. Pavlov St. Petersburg State Medical University". This implies that neither the reviewer is aware of the authorship of the manuscript, nor the author maintains any contact with the reviewer.

1. Members of the editorial board and leading Russian and international experts in corresponding areas of life sciences, invited as independent readers, perform peer reviews. Editor-in-chief, deputy editor-in-chief or science editor choose readers for peer review. We aim to limit the review process to 2-4 weeks, though in some cases the schedule may be adjusted at the reviewer’s request.
2. Reviewer has an option to abnegate the assessment should any conflict of interests arise that may affect perception or interpretation of the manuscript. Upon the scrutiny, the reviewer is expected to present the editorial board with one of the following recommendations:
   - to accept the paper in its present state;
   - to invited the author to revise their manuscript to address specific concerns before final decision is reached;
   - that final decision be reached following further reviewing by another specialist;
   - to reject the manuscript outright.
3. If the reviewer has recommended any refinements, the editorial staff would suggest the author either to implement the corrections, or to dispute them reasonably. Authors are kindly required to limit their revision to 2 months and resubmit the adapted manuscript within this period for final evaluation.
4. We politely request that the editor be notified verbally or in writing should the author decide to refuse from publishing the manuscript. In case the author fails to do so within 3 months since receiving a copy of the initial review, the editorial board takes the manuscript off the register and notifies the author accordingly.
5. If author and reviewers meet insoluble contradictions regarding revision of the manuscript, the editor-in-chief resolves the conflict by his own authority.
6. The editorial board reaches final decision to reject a manuscript on the hearing according to reviewers’ recommendations, and duly notifies the authors of their decision via e-mail. The board does not accept previously rejected manuscripts for re-evaluation.
7. Upon the decision to accept the manuscript for publishing, the editorial staff notifies the authors of the scheduled date of publication.
8. Kindly note that positive review does not guarantee the acceptance, as final decision in all cases lies with the editorial board. By his authority, editor-in-chief rules final solution of every conflict.
9. Original reviews of submitted manuscripts remain deposited for 3 years.

Indexation

Articles in "The Scientific Notes of the I. P. Pavlov St. Petersburg State Medical University" are indexed by several systems:

• Russian Scientific Citation Index (RSCI) – a database, accumulating information on papers by Russian scientists, published in native and foreign titles. The RSCI project is under development since 2005 by “Electronic Scientific Library” foundation (elibrary.ru).
• Google Scholar is a freely accessible web search engine that indexes the full text of scholarly literature across an array of publishing formats and disciplines. The Google Scholar index includes most peer-reviewed online journals of Europe and America's largest scholarly publishers, plus scholarly books and other non-peer reviewed journals.
• Base
• Cyberleninka
• Dimensions
• DOAJ
• SOCIONET
• VINITI RAS

Publishing Ethics

The Publication Ethics and Publication Malpractice Statement of the journal "The Scientific Notes of the I. P. Pavlov St. Petersburg State Medical University"  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) 

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: "The Scientific Notes of the I. P. Pavlov St. Petersburg State Medical University"

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 "The Scientific Notes of the I. P. Pavlov St. Petersburg State Medical University"  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 "The Scientific Notes of the I. P. Pavlov St. Petersburg State Medical University" 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 "The Scientific Notes of the I. P. Pavlov St. Petersburg State Medical University" 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.

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 "The Scientific Notes of the I. P. Pavlov St. Petersburg State Medical University" 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

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 "The Scientific Notes of the I. P. Pavlov St. Petersburg State Medical University" 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 "The Scientific Notes of the I. P. Pavlov St. Petersburg State Medical University" 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 "The Scientific Notes of the I. P. Pavlov St. Petersburg State Medical University" 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.

The section is prepared according to the files of Elsevier publisher (https://www.elsevier.com/) and files (http://publicationethics.org/resources) from Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE - http://publicationethics.org/). 

Founder

• Pavlov university

Author fees

Publication in "The Scientific Notes of the I. P. Pavlov St. Petersburg State Medical University" 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

"The Scientific Notes of the I. P. Pavlov St. Petersburg State Medical University" 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

Preprint and Postprint Deposition Policy

The editorial board of the "The Scientific Notes of the I. P. Pavlov St. Petersburg State Medical University" allows authors to post the manuscript as a preprint before submission for review and to archive independently their articles in disciplinary and institutional repositories.

Preprints

The editorial board of the "The Scientific Notes of the I. P. Pavlov St. Petersburg State Medical University" encourages uploading preprints on preprint servers. The Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) defines a preprint as 'a scholarly manuscript posted by the author(s) in an openly accessible platform, usually before or in parallel with the peer review process.' 

A preprint publication shall not be considered duplicate publication nor shall it influence the editor's decision to publish it in the JOURNAL TITLE.

The author must notify the editorial board of the "The Scientific Notes of the I. P. Pavlov St. Petersburg State Medical University" about the posted preprint at submission of the manuscript for review, furnishing a link to the preprint with its DOI identifier and the dissemination terms and conditions.

It is the author’s responsibility to add a link to the published manuscript in the preprint record. The link must contain the DOI and the URL of the article published on the journal's website. The original preprint should not be modified based on the reviewer’s and editor’s comments. The preprint should not be replaced with the text of the published article.

Do not delete the preprint text.

Manuscripts Accepted for Publication

The editorial board of the "The Scientific Notes of the I. P. Pavlov St. Petersburg State Medical University" allows manuscripts that have been reviewed and are accepted for publication to be archived independently.

 This version of the manuscript may be disseminated through:

-   personal website or blog;

-   institutional repository;

-   disciplinary repository;

-   direct interactions with faculty or students by providing this version of the manuscript for personal use.

The text of the manuscript should contain the author’s clarifications about its status and information about the planned publication.

Example: The ARTICLE TITLE has been reviewed, accepted for publication, and will be published in 2021 (3) of the "The Scientific Notes of the I. P. Pavlov St. Petersburg State Medical University"

Once the final version of the manuscript is published, it is the author’s responsibility to add a link to the published article to the publication record. The posted text should not be modified based on the reviewer’s and editor’s comments. Do not replace the text of the posted manuscript. Do not delete the text of the posted manuscript.

Final Versions of Manuscripts

The editorial board of the "The Scientific Notes of the I. P. Pavlov St. Petersburg State Medical University" allows manuscripts that have been peer-reviewed, accepted for publication, edited and ready for publication (proofread and typeset) to be archived independently.

 This version of the manuscript may be disseminated through:

-   personal website or blog;

-   institutional repository;

-   disciplinary repository;

-   direct interactions with faculty or students by providing this version of the manuscript for personal use.

 Once the final version of the manuscript is published, it is the author’s responsibility to add a link to the published article to the publication record. The posted text should not be modified based on the reviewer’s and editor’s comments. Do not replace the text of the posted manuscript. Do not delete the text of the posted manuscript.

Advertising guidelines

Advertisers do not influence the editorial and advertising policies of the Editorial Board.

All advertising materials are reviewed and approved by the Editorial Board meeting. The Editorial Board may consider appropriate to make efforts reducing the review period, but without compromising on the quality of the review. If necessary, the Editorial Board may require additional reference material.

All advertisements must clearly identify the advertiser and the proposed product or service.

All advertising publications received by the Editorial Board must comply with the current legislation of the Russian Federation, including Federal Law No. 38-FZ of March 13, 2006 “On Advertising” and other norms of the current legislation of the Russian Federation.

Advertising of pharmaceutical products must comply with the norms of the Federal Law No. 61-FZ of April 12, 2010 “On Circulation of Medicines”.

The international nonproprietary name (INN) of each active substance must be identified in advertising and informational materials. In editorial materials, you should use the trade name in parentheses in combination with the INN immediately after the first mention once in the abstract and once in the text of the manuscript.

Commercial advertisements are not placed next to any editorial material that discusses the advertised product, or to any articles that reports on the study of the advertised product, and they should not contain references to the article in the same issue, where they are published. The design of advertisements differs from the design of editorial materials; readers must clearly identify advertisement and editorial material.

Advertisers are fully responsible for all information contained in advertising and informational materials published in the journal and its accuracy. Advertiser agrees to indemnify any losses that the publisher may meet due to the publication of advertising information, including claims or actions for libel, breach of confidentiality, breach of copyright or literary piracy.

POLICY ON THE USE OF GENERATIVE ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE (AI)

This policy regulates the use of generative artificial intelligence tools that are designed to create new content (text, code, images, data) and modify it. Routine spelling and grammar checking using tools available in modern word processors is not governed by this policy.

Key provisions of the policy:

-   No generative AI program can be named as an author or co-author of an article, nor can it be credited as having contributed to the work on the article.

-   Any result obtained using generative AI must be critically evaluated by a human.

-   Any use of generative AI must be disclosed appropriately.

-   Responsibility for information obtained using generative AI rests solely with the human.

-   This policy is not final; individual clauses may be revised depending on the conditions of working with generative AI and progress in this field.

When working with generative AI, one should remember:

-   Authors using generative AI often ignore its limitations, succumbing to cognitive biases: they tend to believe that AI provides comprehensive answers to their questions and does not make mistakes.

-   Generative AI is prone to hallucinations and does not always know how to say "no". If the program does not know the exact answer to your question, it will generate a response that looks plausible but has no connection to reality.

-   Generative AI makes mistakes. The program may admit an error, but only if specifically asked about it. Can one identify an error where one does not expect to find it?

-   Generative AI is biased. The answers of generative AI depend on the dataset used to train the model.

-   Generative AI does not compensate for the lack of experience of the person using it. The less experience the author has, the higher the likelihood that they will not be able to identify inaccuracies in the response provided by the chatbot.

-   Using generative AI always creates a risk of confidentiality threats and rights violations. The terms of public generative AI tools often permit the reuse of input data for training; data may be accidentally or intentionally displayed as output from the generative AI tool without appropriate licensing notices or distribution terms. When generating a response, generative AI may use other people's ideas without proper attribution.

-   Using generative AI does not always provide access to comprehensive data on the research question. There are materials that are inaccessible for training generative AI models for various reasons.

-   Documenting the work with generative AI during article preparation and research planning is a necessity: journals require not only a description of the work done with the help of generative AI but also the submission of the queries made to the program and the responses received. At different times, a generative AI program may respond differently to the same question, so it is necessary to retain information important for the further work.

-   Verifying information generated by AI in response to a query requires a time investment (often significant).

-   Generated text detectors can flag potentially generated phrases but cannot identify fabricated references that arise from generative AI hallucinations (although some publishers are already addressing this issue).

-   Proper disclosure of the use of generative AI is necessary to minimize the spread of incorrect information and to allow for subsequent verification of the information obtained.

Permitted Uses of Generative AI

The Editorial Board of the journal "The Scientific Notes of Pavlov University" permits authors to use generative AI programs in the following ways:

-   Spelling and grammar checking.

-   Using bibliographic reference managers.

-   Improving the readability of the article text.

-   Formatting the text according to the journal's requirements.

-   Generating ideas.

-   Analyzing source data.

-   Developing research design and/or methods.

-   Organizing sources for a review.

-   Writing software code.

-   Improving the article structure.

The Editorial Board of the journal "The Scientific Notes of Pavlov University" requires complete disclosure of information regarding exactly how and for what purposes the generative AI program was used.

Prohibited Uses of Generative AI

The Editorial Board of the journal "The Scientific Notes of Pavlov University" prohibits the use of generative AI programs in the following ways:

Generative AI cannot be used to solve the core tasks of the author: generating scientific, pedagogical, or medical ideas, scientific conclusions, or developing clinical recommendations; using AI to create any type of content, including abstracts and supplementary materials; AI must not replace critically important aspects of scientific work, such as data interpretation, forming conclusions, and creating reliable content.

Generation and Editing of Images and Data

Generative AI may be used to create or modify images, provided that the work with the image is disclosed and the following conditions are met: Adjustments to brightness, contrast, or color balance are permissible if they do not distort the original data. It is unacceptable to enhance, obscure, move, remove, or add specific elements to an image. The fact of using generative AI must be described in the figure caption.

Citing AI Program Responses in the Text

Responses from a generative AI program cannot be cited in the article text.

Disclosure of Information on the Use of Generative AI

The Editorial Board of the journal "The Scientific Notes of Pavlov University" requires authors to include information on the use of generative AI in a declaration after the article text, under the following heading:

Use of Generative AI Tools

The disclosure must include information about which generative AI tool was used (name, version, and number), the purpose of its use, and the manner in which it was used.

If generative AI was not used during the research and preparation of the article, please state this.

Example disclosure:

"During the preparation of this work, the author(s) used [NAME OF TOOL/SERVICE] to [REASON]. After using this tool/service, the author(s) reviewed and edited the content as needed and take full responsibility for the content of the publication."

The author must provide the prompts and the results obtained upon request from the Editorial Board.

Use of Generative AI During Peer Review

The reviewer should refrain from the following actions, even for the purpose of improving the language of the review:

-   Uploading the article text or its fragments into a generative AI program due to potential confidentiality breaches.

-   Uploading the review text or its fragments into a generative AI program due to potential confidentiality breaches.

-   Using a generative AI program to evaluate the article.

If a reviewer suspects that generative AI was used in the article, they should inform the editor.

If a reviewer wishes to conduct an additional check of the manuscript using generative AI detectors, they should inform the editor.

Use of Generative AI During Editing

The editor should refrain from the following actions, even for the purpose of improving the language:

-   Uploading the article text or its fragments into a generative AI program due to potential confidentiality breaches.

-   Uploading the review text or its fragments into a generative AI program due to potential confidentiality breaches.

-   Using a generative AI program to combine reviewer comments and prepare a letter to the author with the final publication decision.

Editorial Actions Upon Detection of Undisclosed Use of Generative AI (Before or After Publication)

The journal editor may suspect undeclared or improper use of generative AI before or after publication. If suspicions arise, the Editorial Board will act as follows:

-   Request clarification from the authors.

-   Ask for confirmation of independent work with the article text – drafts, raw data.

-   Check the article text using an alternative generative AI detector (without using a generative AI chatbot).

-   Check the author's texts written before the existence of generative AI programs for generated fragments.

-   Conduct an interview with the author.

After gathering information, the Editorial Board will review the article and the impact of generative AI on the research results, then make a decision regarding the article's fate:

-   Request that changes/additions be made to the article with appropriate notation.

-   Retract the article according to the existing procedure.

Resolution of Disputes

The decision on each case that raises suspicion is made individually. When disputes arise, the Editorial Board relies on existing guidelines and recommendations, as well as its own policy on the use of generative AI.