Peer review process

The procedure for the article manuscript reviewing in the journal "Endovascular Neuroradiology".

  1. Reviewing (expert evaluation) of scientific articlesprovide the maintain a high scientific and practical level of the journal "Endovascular Neuroradiology" and select the most relevant and interesting scientific article.
  2. Journal "Endovascular Neuroradiology"uses the double-blind reviewing:
  • the author's / authors' personal information is not disclosed to the reviewer;
  • The author / authors do not disclose the personal data of the reviewer.
  1. Scientific articles thatare sentto the editor, pass through primary control of completeness and correctness of design and accordance with the Requirement for the manuscript (present on the journal web-site). If there is questions about compliance of requirements - the manuscript is returned to the author for revision. In cases of repeated return of materials in inappropriate form - manuscript is not accepted for publication or the period of its publication is postponed on unidentified term.
  2. The primary expertpeer-reviewing of the scientific article isdone by the chief editor or the deputy chief editor / secretary.
  3. The chief editor (deputy chief editor/secretary) definesthe reviewer forthe manuscript from the editorial board or editorial council. This person should have the relevant scientific direction.
  • In the absence of the editorial board / council member with relevant scientific specialization, the chief editor (deputy chief editor / secretary) definesan external reviewerfor the manuscript.
  • All reviewers (internal or external) should be known specialists in the subject of submitted manuscript and have publications in this field of research (during the last 5 years).
  1. After an expert evaluation of a scientific manuscript, the reviewercan:
  • recommend articleforpublication;
  • recommend the articleforpublication after author's revision, taking into account the expressed comments;
  • do not recommend articlefor publication.

If the reviewer recommends the article for publication after author's revision, or does not recommend the article for publication, the reason for such decision with the thorough description of comments should be indicated. The results of the review should be sent to the editorial office in a scanned form with a signature and in word format. The scanned copy remains in the editorial archives, the word form is sent to the author to complete remarks or for revision. As for any technical reasons, the reviewer can’t send a scanned copy with signature, the editorial office archives the word form with a printed copy of the e-mail  as a confirmation of the reviewere authorship and its originality.

Using of the special form of the reviewer is obligatory.

  1. Reviewers should evaluate during reviewing process:
  • relevance and originality of the scientific problem presented in the article;
  • clarity ofdatapresentation, writing style, correctness of the given mathematical calculations, graphs, images, other illustrations and tables;
  • the level of analysis and evidence, the application of statistical methods and interpretation of the data;
  • relevance, novelty and significance of the results; comparing the author's findings with existing scientificknowledge;
  • compliance of ethical norms;
  • correctness of references;
  • literacy.
  1. Scientific articles may be sent for additional review. Reasons for additional reviewing:
  • insufficient qualification of reviewerinthe scientific field of reviewing article;
  • insufficientlevel of initialreviewing conclusion;
  • discussion ofarticlecontent.

The editorial office send a copy of reviewing form to authors (unnamed as not to disclose the reviewer) or motivated editorial refusal for publishing.