10.05.2025

Reviewer's Responsibilities

By agreeing to review manuscripts for the Baikal Medical Journal, the reviewer agrees to follow the journal's policies in evaluating the manuscript, preparing the review, and in terms of reviewer behavior and compliance with ethical requirements.

The reviewer should strive to ensure the high quality of published materials in the Baikal Medical Journal, as does the editor, and therefore should review a manuscript only if he or she has sufficient experience in the field under review and enough time to carefully and comprehensively review the article.

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

A reviewer must refuse to review if:

• is the supervisor or subordinate of the author of the manuscript, or is the holder of joint grants;

• does not plan to prepare a review, but only wants to familiarize himself with the text of the article;

• prepares his own article on a similar topic for publication;

• reviews an article on a similar topic.

The reviewer is obliged to inform the editor of his intention to review the article, and also to complete the work within the time period specified by the editor. If it is impossible to conduct a review for a number of reasons, it is advisable to recommend another expert to the editor.

The reviewer cannot use his status for personal purposes and impose links to his works on authors.

All materials received from the editor of the journal are strictly confidential. The reviewer should not transfer materials to third parties or involve other specialists in reviewing the manuscript without the consent of the editor of the Baikal Medical Journal.

Recommendations for reviewers

For the convenience of the reviewer, the editors of the Baikal Medical Journal suggest using a form for quick review - it reflects the questions, the answers to which the editor needs to make a decision on the article. The editors of the journal kindly ask the reviewer to pay more attention to the “Comments” section to help authors improve their current and future work.

The content and structure of the review

The recommendations of NEICON were used to create this section. The editors of the “Baikal Medical Journal” received permission from NEICON to use the 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 modern areas of research;

•  Reproducibility of results;

•  Literature coverage;

•  Application of results.

In addition to the quick review form, the editors of the Baikal Medical Journal recommend that reviewers supplement the review with their comments (include the following sections):

Conflict of Interest - describes a real or potential conflict of interest related to the content of the manuscript or its authors that may lead to a biased conclusion.

Confidential Comments - this section is for comments that will not be shared with the authors. It includes the reviewer's final conclusion about the fate of the manuscript, the reviewer's suggestions, concerns regarding possible ethical violations, and recommendations and accompanying comments (for example, the reviewer may advise the editor to request additional information from the author). Proposed Decision - usually a brief conclusion about the fate of the manuscript (accept for publication, accept for publication with minor revision, accept for publication with major revision, reject, reject and invite the author to resubmit the article).

Comments for Authors

Introductory Part - this section describes the main conclusions of the article and its value to readers. Main Comments - this section describes the relevance to the aims and objectives of the journal, the level of credibility, and ethical conduct. Specific comments — the reviewer evaluates sections of the article (abstract, introduction, methods, results, discussion) or comments on specific pages, paragraphs, or lines.

Recommendations to the author — the reviewer makes recommendations to the author for improving the quality of the manuscript and, possibly, future research.

Final comments — a brief summary of the strengths and weaknesses of the manuscript without any additional recommendations.

Manuscript Evaluation Criteria

Relevance to the Subject Area

Time should not be wasted reviewing an irrelevant manuscript, regardless of its quality. The first step is to determine whether the manuscript is relevant to the subject area of the journal and the interests of its audience.

Validity

Does the work meet all the necessary requirements in terms of study design, scientific methods, structure and content, and depth of analysis, does it comply with the principles of impartial scientific research, and are the results reproducible? Is the study sample selected appropriately? Is it analyzed in sufficient detail to allow the results to be generalized? Novelty

Did the study contribute anything new to the relevant subject area?

Ethics

Does the study meet the requirements for originality, has it been approved by the review board (if required), and is it unbiased in terms of conflicts of interest? Regardless of how great the supposed significance of the manuscript is, it cannot be accepted for publication in case of redundancy, plagiarism, or violation of the basic ethical principles of scientific research: legality, usefulness, and respect for people.

Evaluation of Manuscript Elements

The editors of the Baikal Medical Journal suggest using the following questions to speed up the process of preparing an expert opinion and providing the editor and author with the most complete information about the article.

Title

Does the title accurately match the content of the manuscript? Will the title attract the attention of readers?

Abstract

Is the content of the manuscript presented in the abstract appropriately (is the abstract structured, does it describe the objectives, methods, results, and significance)?

Are there any discrepancies between the abstract and the sections of the manuscript? Can the abstract be understood without reading the manuscript?

Introduction

Is the introduction brief? Is the purpose of the study clearly defined and the problem stated? Does the author justify the relevance and significance of the study based on the literature review? If so, does this section meet the length requirements? Does the author provide definitions of terms that appear in the manuscript? If the manuscript is submitted to the Original Research section, does it contain a clearly stated hypothesis?

Literature Review

How comprehensive is the literature review?

Methods

Would another researcher be able to reproduce the study results using the proposed methods, or are the methods unclear?

Do the authors justify their choice of methods when describing the study (e.g., the choice of visualization methods, analytical tools, or statistical methods)?

If the authors state a hypothesis, have they developed methods that allow a reasonable test of the hypothesis?

How is the study design presented?

How does the data analysis help to achieve the stated purpose?

Results

Are the results clearly explained? Is the order of results presented in the order in which the methods are described? Are the results reasonable and expected, or unexpected? Are there any results that are not preceded by a proper description in the Methods section? How accurate is the presentation of the results?

Discussion

Is the discussion brief? If not, how can it be shortened?

If a hypothesis is stated, do the authors state whether it was supported or refuted? If a hypothesis is not supported, do the authors state whether the study question was answered? Are the authors’ conclusions consistent with the results obtained during the study? If unexpected results are obtained, do the authors adequately analyze them? What potential contribution does the study make to the field and to global science?

Conclusions

Do the authors highlight the limitations of the study? Are there any additional limitations that should be noted? What do the authors think about these limitations? What do the authors think about future research directions?

References

Does the references match the journal format? Are there any bibliographic errors in the references? Are the articles in the references referenced in the text of the article correctly? Are there important works that are not mentioned but should be noted? Are there more references in the article than necessary? Are the cited references up-to-date? Tables

If the article contains tables, do they accurately describe the results? Should one or more tables be added to the article? Are the data presented in tables appropriately processed and do they facilitate rather than complicate the understanding of the information?

Figures

Are tables and figures an appropriate choice for the task at hand? Could the results be illustrated in another way? Do the figures and graphs accurately depict important results? Do the figures and graphs need to be modified to present the results more accurately and clearly? Do the figure and graph legends allow the information to be understood without referring to the manuscript itself?

Disclosure of Conflicts of Interest

Are the funding and conflicts of interest clearly stated?

Reviewer's Final Decision

The editors of the Baikal Medical Journal suggest using the following justification for the reviewer's final decision.

Accept the article for publication

The reviewer understands that the article is ready for publication in its current form. The article is justified, ethical, significant for the scientific community and complements previously published work, the writing style is clear and concise.

Accept after minor revision

The article has non-critical comments that need to be corrected. These may include poor article style, lack of clarity of presentation, insufficiently developed article structure, errors in references, duplication of information in figures and tables and in the text of the article. After making changes and re-evaluation, the article can be accepted for publication.

Accept after significant revision and review of the article

The article has serious shortcomings and errors that affect the reliability of the results: problems with ethics, study design, gaps in the description of the research methods, poorly presented results or their incorrect interpretation, insufficiently complete description of the limitations of the study, contradictory (or refuted by the author's own statements) conclusions, lack of references to important studies, unclear tables and figures that require serious revision. After re-evaluation, the article may be accepted, rejected, or sent for additional review. This decision often requires collecting additional data from the author.

Reject

The work does not meet the aims and objectives of the journal, has one or more irreparable shortcomings, or serious ethical problems: consent for publication was not obtained when necessary, the research methods were unethical, the methodology is discredited or flawed (for example, a process that seriously affects the results is ignored). In this case, the author should not resubmit a revised document for review without a special request. The reviewer should provide detailed comments justifying their decision, as they can help the author significantly improve the work.

Reject and invite the author to resubmit the article for review

The topic or question posed by the research is interesting, but the author uses incorrect or insufficiently reliable methods, therefore, the data obtained are also unreliable. This decision is also possible in cases where the article requires many changes or when it is not possible to obtain the requested additional information from the author. Authors are invited to conduct the study again taking into account the recommended changes and submit new results for review.

Editing reviews

The editors of the Baikal Medical Journal expect that reviews will be written in a friendly tone and in accordance with the rules of the Russian language. Personal attacks, insults to the author, and pointless criticism of any aspect of the research, language and style of the manuscript, etc. are prohibited.

The editors of the Baikal Medical Journal try to pass reviews to the authors in their original form, but in some cases it may be necessary to change the text of the review without losing its meaning (for example, when combining comments from several experts on one issue or in the case of confidential comments in the section of the review intended for the author).

The editors of the Baikal Medical Journal have the right to send the review to an expert for revision in the event of a large number of errors or an unacceptable tone of the review.