All scientific articles submitted to the editors of the Siberian Herald of Psychiatry and Addiction Psychiatry undergo mandatory one-sided anonymous (“blind”) peer-review (the authors of the manuscript do not know the reviewers and receive a letter with comments signed by the editor-in-chief).


The review procedure includes the following steps:


1. Examination of the article by the scientific editor of the journal to ensure compliance of the article with the basic requirements for manuscripts. All articles submitted to the editorial office are checked using the anti-pagiarism system for the presence of borrowings. Manuscripts that do not take into account the Terms of publication of articles in the journal "Bulletin of Siberian Medicine" are not considered, the author is informed about the refusal to consider the manuscript due to its non-compliance with the Terms. It is carried out within 5 days from the date of receipt of the article by the editorial office.

2. Peer review. Articles are reviewed by members of the editorial board, as well as by invited reviewers, leading experts in the relevant field of medicine in Russia and other countries. The decision to choose one or another reviewer for the examination of the article is made by the editor-in-chief, deputies of the editor-in-chief. The review period is 2-4 weeks, but at the request of the reviewer it can be extended.


Each article for examination is sent to 2 reviewers.


Each reviewer has the right to refuse a review if there is a clear conflict of interest that affects the perception and interpretation of the manuscript materials. In the event that a potential conflict of interest is identified (due to competition, cooperation, and other relationships with any of the authors, companies, or other organizations associated with the submitted work), the reviewer is obliged to declare this and refuse to consider the submitted manuscript. In particular, potential conflicts of interest arising from the review of manuscripts include the following cases:


- the reviewer works in the same department as the author(s) of the manuscript;

- between the reviewer and the author (authors) of the manuscript there is or recently there was cooperation;

- the reviewer has joint publications with the author (authors) that have been published within the last 5 years;

- the reviewer has a personal relationship with the author (authors) of the article that interferes with the objective evaluation of the manuscript.


Thus, the reviewer cannot be the author or coauthor of the peer-reviewed work, as well as supervisors of applicants for a scientific degree and employees of the department in which the author / coauthors of the article work.


Based on the results of consideration of the manuscript, the reviewer makes recommendations on the further fate of the article:

the article is recommended for publication in its present form;

the article is recommended for publication after the shortcomings noted by the reviewer are corrected;

the article needs additional review by another specialist;

the article cannot be published in the journal.


Each decision of the reviewer must be justified.

If the review contains recommendations for correcting and refining the article, the editors of the journal send the author the text of the review with a proposal to take them into account when preparing a new version of the article or to refute them with reason (partially or completely). Finalization of the article should not take more than two months from the date of sending an e-mail to the authors about the need to make changes. The version of the article corrected by the author is sent back for review.


In case the authors refuse to finalize the materials, they must notify the editors in writing or orally of their refusal to publish the article. If the authors do not return the corrected version after 3 months from the date of sending the review, even if there is no information from the authors, the editors remove it from the registry. In such situations, the authors are sent an appropriate notification of the removal of the manuscript from registration due to the expiration of the time allotted for revision.


If the author and reviewers have irresolvable contradictions with respect to the manuscript, the editorial board has the right to send the manuscript for additional review. In conflict situations, the decision is made by the editor-in-chief at a meeting of the editorial board.


The decision to refuse publication of the manuscript is made at a meeting of the editorial board in accordance with the recommendations of the reviewers. An article not recommended by the decision of the editorial board for publication is not accepted for reconsideration. A notice of refusal to publish is sent to the author by e-mail.


The presence of a positive review is not sufficient grounds for publishing an article. The final decision on publication is made by the editorial board. In conflict situations, the decision is made by the editor-in-chief


After the editorial board of the journal makes a decision on the admission of the article for publication, the editorial board informs the author about this and indicates the terms of publication.

Original reviews are kept in the editorial office of the journal for 3 years.


The review procedure is confidential. Reviewers are informed that manuscripts submitted for consideration are the intellectual property of the authors and are classified as confidential information. Reviewers are not allowed to use manuscripts for their own needs. Violation of anonymity and confidentiality is possible only in the case of a statement about the unreliability or falsification of materials. Unpublished data derived from submitted manuscripts cannot be used.


Reviewers and authors are obliged to follow the adopted policy of the journal 'Siberian Hearld of Psychiatry and Addiction Psychiatry' in terms of compliance with ethical standards when publishing articles posted on the Journal website on the Internet.


The review is compiled according to the standard form proposed by the editors with the obligatory coverage of the following provisions:


- the relevance of the presented article;

- Scientific novelty of the direction of research considered in the article;

-practical significance of the problem posed and/or the results obtained in the area of knowledge under consideration;

-adequacy and modernity of research methods;

- the sufficiency and information content of the research material;

-correctness and completeness of the discussion of the obtained results;

- Conformity of conclusions with the purpose and objectives of the study;

- the admissibility of the volume of the manuscript as a whole and its individual elements (text, tables, illustrative material, bibliographic references);

- the adequacy, quality and expediency of placing tables, illustrative material in the article and their compliance with the topic;

The quality of the article design: the style of presentation, the adequacy of the terminology and its compliance with the accepted in the field of knowledge under consideration.


The reviewer is obliged to make an objective assessment of the manuscript. Personal remarks to the author(s) are unacceptable. The reviewer must express his opinion clearly and reasonably.

 The reviewer, if possible, should identify significant published works relevant to the topic and relevant to the peer-reviewed manuscript that are not included in the bibliography of the manuscript. Any statement in a review that some observation, conclusion, or argument from a peer-reviewed manuscript has already been encountered in the literature must be accompanied by an accurate bibliographic reference. The reviewer should draw the attention of the editor-in-chief to the discovery of significant similarities or coincidences between the manuscript under consideration and any other previously published work.