Preview

User

Not a user? Register with this site Forgot your password?

Bulletin of Reproductive Health

Advanced search

Editorial Policies

Aim and Scope

The scientific peer-rewieved medical journal "Bulletin of Reproductive Health" published since 2007. It publishes original articles about the carried-out clinical, experimental and fundamental scientific works, reviews, lectures, descriptions of clinical cases, debatable materials, transfers of the foreign periodic medical press, and also auxiliary materials on all actual problems of reproductive medicine.

 The main subject of the journal is focused on key questions of reproductive health, etiology and pathogenesis of various reproductive system diseases, features of their clinical picture.  And also to diagnostics and treatment of violations of a sexual differentiation, problems of fruitless marriage, auxiliary reproductive technologies, climacteric frustration...

The priority direction of the journal is acquaintance of a wide range of experts and practical healthcare providers with world tendencies of reproductive medicine, and also an assessment of emergence of the latest and perspective methods of treatment and prevention of diseases from a position of evidence medicine.

 The journal:

  • acquaints readers with the original domestic and foreign researches reflecting development of world reproductive medicine;
  • issues the thematic numbers devoted to the separate directions (violations of formation of a floor, infertility, Polycystic Ovarian Syndrome, climacteric, replaceable hormonal therapy, pregnancy and diabetes...);
  • publishes the chronicle of the major international congresses and symposiums on reproductive medicine, and also the latest international and national clinical recommendations and consensuses;
  • is  intended for scientists, obstetricians-gynecologists, endocrinologists, and also experts of all adjacent specialties, including urologists, general practitioners, family doctors, pediatricians, and other experts.

 

Section Policies

ОРИГИНАЛЬНЫЕ СТАТЬИ
Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed
ОБЗОРЫ
Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed
CASE REPORT
Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed
SHORT
Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed
EDITORIAL
Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed
NEWS
Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed
REVIEW
Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed
ORIGINAL STUDY
Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed
OBITUARY
Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed
CLINICAL GUIDELINES
Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed
CLINICAL GUIDELINES
Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed
 

Publication Frequency

4 выпуска в год

 

Open Access Policy

This journal provides immediate open access to its content on the principle that making research freely available to the public supports a greater global exchange of knowledge.

 

Peer Review

A double-blind peer review method is mandatory for processing of all scientific manuscripts submitted to the editorial stuff of “Bulletin of Reproductive Health”. 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.

 

Publishing Ethics

This Policy has been developed by the Publisher
Endocrinology Research Centre, Ministry of Health of Russia

Contents

 

 

 

Authorship, authors’ contribution, acknowledgments

Authorship

BULLETIN OF REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH journal shall adhere to the following authorship criteria (as developed and described in ICMJE guidelines):

1. Substantial contributions to the conception or design of the work; or the acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data for the work; and 

2. Drafting the work or revising it critically for important intellectual content; and 

3. Final approval of the version to be published; and 

4. Agreement to be accountable for all aspects of the work in ensuring that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work are appropriately investigated and resolved.

In addition to being accountable for the parts of the work he or she has done, an author should be able to identify which co-authors are responsible for specific other parts of the work. In addition, authors should have confidence in the integrity of the contributions of their co-authors. All those designated as authors should meet all four criteria for authorship, and all who meet the four criteria should be identified as authors.

Those who do not meet all four criteria should be mentioned in the Acknowledgments section.

 

Author’s contributions and non-author contributors

The Acknowledgments section may mention individuals who have contributed to the work but do not meet the authorship criteria, e.g., those who supported the research, acted as mentors, assisted in data collection, coordinated the others’ efforts, etc.

To ensure correct identification of one’s contribution our authors may use one of COPE-recommended schemes:

General Guidelines for Authorship Contributions

CRediT – Contributor Roles Taxonomy

 

Responsibilities

BULLETIN OF REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH editors shall be responsible for keeping the standards of authorship and author contribution.

Authors shall provide transparent and correct information about the paper’s co-authors and substantial contributors.

If a manuscript is submitted to BULLETIN OF REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH by its Chief Editor, Deputy Chief Editor, Editorial Board or Editorial Council member, such manuscript shall be reviewed by external peers only.

To identify one’s contribution to a paper correctly, you may use the following guidelines:

https://www.apa.org/science/leadership/students/authorship-determination-scorecard.pdf

https://www.apa.org/science/leadership/students/authorship-tie-breaker-scorecard.pdf

 

Statement of authorship

BULLETIN OF REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH editorial office requires that a statement of authorship signed by all co-authors be submitted with each manuscript.

By signing such statement, authors shall represent and warrant that:

  • Each author who signed the statement meets the authorship criteria set out in BULLETIN OF REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH publication ethics policy
  • All non-author contributors are mentioned in the Acknowledgments section
  • Each author’s contribution is clearly identified. That information will be published in BULLETIN OF REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH
  • The authors assume responsibility for the accuracy of information furnished by them.

As our editor receives a paper manuscript, they shall check whether the author details and all necessary documents are in place. Should a statement of authorship or any author’s signature be missing, such manuscript cannot be accepted.

 

Plagiarism

Plagiarism takes many forms, from passing off another 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 behavior and is unacceptable. Only original works are acceptable for publication in BULLETIN OF REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH journal. The journal does not allow any forms of plagiarism. Authors must not use the words, figures, or ideas of others without attribution. BULLETIN OF REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH journal take issues of copyright infringement, plagiarism or other breaches of best practice in publication very seriously. We seek to protect the rights of our authors and we always investigate claims of plagiarism or misuse of published articles. Equally, we seek to protect the reputation of the journal against malpractice. All the submitted articles are evaluated with plagiarism-checking software (ANTIPLAGIAT).

If plagiarism is identified, the COPE guidelines on plagiarism shall be followed.

Also you can see ORI Avoiding Plagiarism, Self-plagiarism, and Other Questionable Writing Practices: A Guide to Ethical Writing.

 

Duplicate Submission and Redundant Publication

BULLETIN OF REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH journal consider only original content, i.e. articles that have not been previously published, including in a language other than English. Articles based on content previously made public only on a preprint server, institutional repository, or in a thesis will be considered.

Manuscripts submitted to BULLETIN OF REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH journal must not be submitted elsewhere while under consideration and must be withdrawn before being submitted elsewhere. Authors whose articles are found to have been simultaneously submitted elsewhere may incur sanctions.

If authors have used their own previously published work, or work that is currently under review, as the basis for a submitted manuscript, they must cite the previous articles and indicate how their submitted manuscript differs from their previous work. Reuse of the authors’ own words outside the Methods should be attributed or quoted in the text. Reuse of the authors’ own figures or substantial amounts of wording may require permission from the copyright holder and the authors are responsible for obtaining this.

BULLETIN OF REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH journal will consider extended versions of articles published at conferences provided this is declared in the cover letter, the previous version is clearly cited and discussed, there is significant new content, and any necessary permissions are obtained.

Redundant publication, the inappropriate division of study outcomes into more than one article (also known as salami slicing), may result in rejection or a request to merge submitted manuscripts, and the correction of published articles. Duplicate publication of the same, or a very similar, article may result in the retraction of the later article and the authors may incur sanctions.

More information about acceptable forms of secondary publications you can see ICMJE recommendations.

 

Disputes

In the event of an authorship dispute our Journal shall suspend processing the paper regardless of the stage it is at (assessment, peer review, editing or preparation for print).

In the event an authorship dispute arises, all co-authors shall be notified thereof via email.

BULLETIN OF REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH editor may set a clear deadline by which the authors should provide their explanation on matters requested. Once such deadline expires, the paper shall be withdrawn from publication and a notice thereof shall be made. In the event the paper has already been published in the Online First mode, the notice on publication withdrawal shall be posted in the public domain.

In the event an authorship dispute concerns a published paper, BULLETIN OF REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH editor shall publish a correction or a refutation or shall retract the paper and state the reasons therefor.

In the event a co-author has to be added or removed prior to or following a paper publication, BULLETIN OF REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH editorial office shall follow COPE rules:

https://publicationethics.org/files/authorship-a-addition-before-publication-cope-flowchart.pdf

https://publicationethics.org/node/34601

In order to prevent manipulations with co-authorship, BULLETIN OF REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH editorial office shall use COPE flowcharts and shall particularly focus on the following:

  • Industry-funded study with no authors from the sponsor company. This will require conducting a more in-depth investigation of each author’s contribution and, if applicable, requesting any necessary information from the corresponding author.
  • Name on author list known to be from unrelated research area. This may indicate guest authorship.
  • Unspecified role in Acknowledgments.
  • Unfeasibly long or short author list untypical for the research area or paper type in question.
  • Questionable roles of contributors, e.g., it appears that no one drafted the paper or analysed the data.
  • A similarity check shows work derived from a thesis where the original author is not on the author list or acknowledged.
  • Several similar articles have been published under different author names or aliases.
  • Authorship changes without notification during revision stages.
  • An author has multiple publications, although their position (e.g., head of a department or a school) does not presuppose such extensive publication activity.
  • Corresponding author unable to respond to reviewers’ comments.

BULLETIN OF REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH editorial office expects institutions affiliated with an author to be willing to contribute to investigations conducted in the event of an authorship dispute.

 

Complaints and appeals

BULLETIN OF REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH editorial office takes seriously any complaints involving the actions of editors and reviewers which may concern things such as confidentiality breach, undisclosed conflict of interest, or illegitimate use of confidential information accessed while reviewing a paper. Authors may also disagree with our decision to express concern regarding a paper and may complain against a breach of due editorial process.

Any complaint may be forwarded to editor@elpub.ru; a standard complaint procedure shall apply. Complaints shall be handled within a maximum of seven days. The complainant shall be notified about our decision and about any action that will be taken, along with the timeframe thereof.

When handling a complaint, we follow COPE guidelines in each of the following cases:

Post-publication critique

Post-publication discussions and corrections

Peer review manipulation suspected after publication

Image manipulation in a published article

Fabricated data in a published article

 

Conflict of interest

This section has been prepared as per the WAME guidelines

A conflict of interest is when conflicting or competing interests arise which may interfere with the editorial decision or interpretation of data provided in the paper. A conflict of interest may be a potential or perceived one or an actual one. Personal, political, financial, professional or religious factors may cause a biased judgement.

A conflict of interest may extend to various areas:

  • Financial ties: this conflict is present when a participant in the publication process has received or expects to receive money (or other financial benefits such as patents or stocks), gifts, or services that may influence work related to a specific publication. Examples: payment for research, honoraria for advice or public speaking, etc.
  • Personal relationships: this conflict arises from personal relationships with family, friends, enemies, competitors, or former colleagues.
  • Political or religious beliefs: Strong commitment to a particular religious conviction or political party may pose a conflict of interest for a given publication if those political or religious issues are affirmed or challenged therein.
  • Institutional affiliations: this conflict exists when a participant in the publication process is directly affiliated with an institution that on the face of it may have an interest in a publication.

BULLETIN OF REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH editorial office may ask the authors to provide additional information where necessary.

A conflict of interest may concern authors, reviewers or editors. The following provisions of our Policy have been prepared as per ICMJE guidelines.

Authors’ responsibility to disclose conflict of interest

As authors submit a manuscript of any type or format, they must disclose all relationships and activities which may influence or be perceived as influencing their work.

An author must notify the editor about an actual or potential conflict of interest by providing details thereof in the relevant section of the paper.

Should no conflict of interest exist, an author must tell that as well. As an example, this wording may be used: ‘The author declares no conflict of interest.’

Reviewers’ responsibility to disclose conflict of interest

Reviewers must notify editors about any conflict of interest which may influence their judgement regarding the manuscript under review and must on their own initiative elect not to review it should there be any reason to suspect a bias. Reviewers cannot use for their own benefit any information about a work under review until it has been published.  

Editors’ responsibility to disclose conflict of interest

Editors who make final decisions regarding manuscripts must on their own initiative elect not to make any editorial decisions if there is any conflict of interest or any relationship that may potentially cause a conflict in respect of the manuscript in question. Other editorial staff who contribute to editorial decisions must notify editors about their existing interest (insofar as they may influence the editorial decisions) and on their own initiative elect not to make any decisions if a conflict of interest exists. Editorial staff cannot use for their personal benefit any information obtained in the course of manuscript processing. Editors must regularly publish reports on potential conflict of interest involving themselves or the Journal’s other staff. Guest editors must follow the same procedure. 

Any paper authored by BULLETIN OF REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH Chief Editor, Deputy Chief Editor, any Editorial Board or Editorial Council member must explicitly state such author’s affiliation with BULLETIN OF REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH.

In the event that an undisclosed conflict of interest is identified in an unpublished paper, BULLETIN OF REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH editorial office shall follow COPE guidelines.

In the event an undisclosed conflict of interest is identified in a published paper, BULLETIN OF REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH editorial office shall follow COPE guidelines.

 

Data re-use and reproducibility 

This section of our Policy has been prepared as per COPE guidelines on data handling.

Authors are by all means welcome but in no way bound to provide access to data obtained through their research and underpinning their thesis. Authors’ consent or lack of consent to provide access to their research data has no bearing on the decision to have their paper published.

 

Research data: definition

Research data include any actual materials recorded on any medium and used in the process of data acquisition, whether in digital or non-digital form. This includes tabular data, code, images, audio and video files, documents, maps, processed and/or raw data. This Policy shall apply to research data which may be required to confirm the accuracy of research findings stated in papers being published by BULLETIN OF REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH. Research data include any information acquired directly by the authors (“Primary Data”) as well as data from other sources analysed by the authors in the course of their study (“Secondary Data”). 

 

Exceptions

This Policy shall not apply to research data which are not required to confirm the accuracy of research findings stated in papers being published.

Information about data that cannot be disclosed may be provided as follows: such data may be uploaded to restricted access research data repositories following their anonymisation. An author may also elect to share in a public domain only the metadata of their research and/or provide a description of the process whereby full access may be obtained if requested by other scholars.

 

Data storage

A preferred way of data exchange is the use of data repositories. Should you need assistance in selecting a data repository, please use the data repository list at:  https://repositoryfinder.datacite.org/.

 

Data citation

BULLETIN OF REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH editorial office welcomes the use of Creative Commons free licences to provide access to research data. BULLETIN OF REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH editorial office does not require the use of free licences in the event data are uploaded to a third-party repository. BULLETIN OF REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH Publisher shall not claim any title to research data submitted by any author with their paper.

Any queries concerning the implementation of this Policy may be addressed to BULLETIN OF REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH Executive Secretary.

 

Ethical supervision 

BULLETIN OF REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH sees eye to eye with COPE on publication ethics as doing more than just ensuring integrity and reliability of published research: it shall ensure ethical behaviour towards the objects of study as well. This category includes vulnerable social groups, lab animals, human subjects (if respective research is carried out), confidential information and business/marketing methods.

 

Informed consent/publication consent

BULLETIN OF REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH requires obtaining an informed consent/publication consent for any paper from any person or group of persons if they may be identified therein. Such consent form shall also be required whenever any diseased individuals are mentioned in a paper. A consent must be obtained in the event any case report, photographic images, x-ray images, etc. are published.

Authors must furnish to BULLETIN OF REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH editorial office a statement to the effect they have obtained informed consent from a patient or their representative. A published paper shall contain information about such consent having been obtained.

Details which must appear in any informed consent:

  1. Patient name and signature.
  2. If the patient is unable to sign the form, the name of the individual signing it and their relationship to the patient must be stated.
  3. If one person is signing for a family or a group of individuals, that person should attest that other members of the family/group have been informed.
  4. It must be stated that the individual or a group of individuals are not prevented, whether legally, mentally or physically, from granting their publication consent. If any such barriers exist, they must be stated (minor children, mental incapacity, physical impairment, death).
  5. The individual obtaining the consent must be duly authorised to do so.
  6. Forms should make it clear that our Journal cannot guarantee confidentiality even if every effort is made.
  7. Forms should indicate that the patient has been informed that they may revoke consent at any time before publication, but once the information has been published revocation of the consent is no longer possible.
  8. Forms should indicate the way in which the paper shall be disseminated (in print and/or online).
  9. Forms should make it clear that that the patient has seen a version of paper to be published. If that is not the case, it has to be stated that the patient or their fiduciary have granted their publication consent without having seen the final version of the paper.
 

Vulnerable groups

Vulnerable groups include (without limitation) individuals who cannot defend their interests: pregnant women, newborn babies, children, foeti, prison inmates, physically impaired, mentally retarded individuals, economically disadvantaged persons, patients hospitalised in serious condition, etc.

A study involving a vulnerable group should not be planned unless it would benefit such group.

One of the reservations is that not all participants of the study may reasonably understand all aspects of the research being conducted. If a participant of the study cannot directly grant their informed consent, the consent form must be signed by their fiduciary. Special care should be taken in respect of any studies involving children.

BULLETIN OF REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH editorial office supports COPE position statement on vulnerable groups and individuals.

Authors must obtain informed publication consent and notify BULLETIN OF REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH editorial office about that.

 

Ethical conduct of studies involving animals

Whenever conducting any experiments on animals the authors must at all times provide information on compliance with institutional and national standards of the use of laboratory animals.

In order to provide more accurate and correct information on a study involving animals, BULLETIN OF REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH recommends using ARRIVE standards. These standards contribute to improvement of published works’ quality and reliability and enable other scholars to reproduce the results.

 

Studies involving human subjects

BULLETIN OF REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH journal is guided by provisions of WMA Declaration of Helsinki – Ethical Principles for Medical Research Involving Human Subjects and endeavours to ensure compliance with ethical standards and rules of data acquisition in studies involving human subjects. Prior to commencing a study, any researcher must make themselves aware of the provisions of Declaration of Helsinki on informed consent and must conduct their research in strict adherence to the principles stated below (Provisions 25–32 of the Declaration of Helsinki are cited). When presenting the findings of experimental studies involving human subjects the authors must state whether the procedures they have conducted comply with ethical standards set forth by the Declaration of Helsinki. If a study is conducted without regard to the principles of that Declaration, the authors must substantiate their approach to the study and ensure that the ethical committee of the institution in which the study is conducted approves that approach.

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 or 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 the right to refuse to participate in the study or to withdraw 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 to 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, the non-written consent must be formally documented and witnessed.

All medical research 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 if 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 the 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 only minimal risk and minimal burden.

29. 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 must 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 exceptional situations where consent would be impossible or impracticable to obtain for such research. In such situations the research may be done only after consideration and approval of a research ethics committee.

 

Handling confidential data

Privacy of individuals and institutions involved in a study is of paramount importance and should not be breached unless by their informed consent. Authors must make every precaution to ensure that information about any human subject of research is duly protected. If necessary, authors must endeavour to minimise any potential physical and psychological harm to human subjects of research.

 

Post-publication discussions and corrections

Sometimes it may be necessary to make corrections to a published paper. BULLETIN OF REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH editorial office supports the practice of correcting published papers and, in such cases, follows COPE guidelines.

Any necessary corrections shall be accompanied with a post-publication notice which will always reference the original version of the paper, so that the readers may get information about all necessary corrections. BULLETIN OF REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH editorial office uses Expression of Concern, Correction or Retraction. The purpose of this practice is ensuring integrity of research materials.

All Corrections, Expressions of Concern and Retractions shall be posted in the public domain.

 

What should an author do when they discover an error in their paper?

Sometimes authors discover a technical or logical error after their paper has been published. In such an event, the authors need to notify BULLETIN OF REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH editorial office as promptly as possible, especially if an error is involved which may affect the interpretation of findings or raise doubts as to the information accuracy. The corresponding author shall be responsible for reaching an accord among the co-authors concerning further cooperation with the editorial office.

Should you believe that your published paper needs corrections, please contact us via email omet@endojournals.ru

 

Mechanism of correcting a paper

Corrections

Corrections are made when it is necessary to rectify an error or furnish missing information insofar as such error or lacuna does not affect the paper’s integrity or scientific merit.   

Thus, corrections may be made to a figure caption; details of research financing may be added, or conflict of interest information may be clarified.

In such an event, a separate notice of correction is published. The overall sequence of action is as follows:

  • Original version of the paper is corrected
  • The Crossmark entry is updated
  • Description of changes made is added to the Abstract section of the original paper
  • A notice of correction is published. It shall contain details of the original paper, authors’ names, summary of the changes made and a reference to the paper.

No notices of correction in respect of spelling errors, typos or other minor corrections are to be published. On our website, a statement is to be posted to the effect that the paper has been corrected (without details).

 

Retracting a paper

BULLETIN OF REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH editorial office elects to retract a paper in any of the following events:

  • There is clear evidence that the findings are unreliable, either as a result of major error (e.g., miscalculation or experimental error), or as a result of fabrication (e.g., of data) or falsification (e.g., image manipulation)
  • Plagiarism has been found
  • The findings have previously been published elsewhere without proper attribution to previous sources or disclosure to the editor, permission to republish, or justification (i.e., cases of redundant publication)
  • The paper contains material or data without authorisation for use
  • Copyright has been infringed or there is some other serious legal issue (e.g., privacy)
  • The paper reports unethical research
  • Peer review process has been compromised
  • The author(s) failed to disclose a conflict of interest that, in the view of the editor, would have unduly affected recommendations by editors and peer reviewers.

BULLETIN OF REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH editorial office shall follow the steps outlined below when it finds that a paper has to be retracted:

  • Conduct an investigation and make sure that retraction is indeed necessary
  • Prepare a notice of retraction: include the word Retraction and the paper title in the notice title, describe the reason for retraction, name the initiator and provide a reference to the paper being retracted
  • Publish the retraction notice
  • Replace the original version of the paper being retracted by stating in the PDF file that the paper has been retracted
  • Notify databases about the retraction
  • Submit information about retraction to Retracted Papers Database.

BULLETIN OF REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH editorial office shall treat retracted papers as per COPE Guidelines.

 

Expression of concern

BULLETIN OF REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH editorial office shall express concern in the event the following takes place:

  • Serious doubts have been expressed with regard to a published paper; however, investigation has not found anything or cannot not be conducted for some reason or cannot be completed within a reasonable time. The readers shall be promptly informed thereof.

Following an investigation, the paper in question may be corrected or retracted.

 

Removing a paper

BULLETIN OF REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH shall remove a paper in exceptional cases only, that is, when the protocol of correction, retraction or expression of concern cannot be followed.

A paper may be removed in any of the following events:

  • Dissemination of the paper may pose a serious risk
  • The paper’s content breaches a human subject’s right to privacy
  • The paper infringes on certain rights
  • The paper must be removed by a court order.

In the event a paper is removed, all related materials shall be removed from the Journal’s website. Databases shall be requested to remove full text of the paper and to post a notice of removal.

 

Updates and post-publication discussions

Supplementing a published paper

An author may wish to supplement a paper at some time after publication. In such an event, BULLETIN OF REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH editorial office may publish a supplement thereto. Any supplements to papers must be reviewed by editors and may be subjected to peer review.

As a supplement is published, the original paper is updated and a notice is made in the next issue specifying the paper details, authors’ names, a summary of the supplements made and a reference to the paper.

 

Comments to a published paper

Comments are short materials which may express an opinion or observation concerning a published paper. Comments are forwarded to the reviewers and authors to enable them to respond to each comment.

The authors’ comments are also forwarded to a reviewer. The comment’s author is given an opportunity to respond to the authors one more time. Following that, any correspondence between the comment’s author and the paper authors may continue privately.

Decision to publish a comment is made by BULLETIN OF REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH editor. Any comments, responses and replies thereto shall reference the original version of the paper in question.

 

Responsibilities of the Journal’s governing bodies: Editorial Board, Editors, Publisher, and Founder

Editorial Board appointments

As to Editorial Board appointments, BULLETIN OF REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH editorial office shall follow COPE principles.

Existing Editorial Board/ Editorial Council members, reviewers and authors may nominate to Chief Editor potential candidates to Editorial Board membership.

Editors who wish to serve in our Journal as Editorial Board/ Editorial Council members may so apply to Chief Editor.

All potential members of Editorial Board/ Editorial Council must accept the following:

  • No member of BULLETIN OF REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH Editorial Board/ Editorial Council may hold a similar position in more than one other journal
  • No editor who has been invited to work on another journal’s special issue may at the same time be member of BULLETIN OF REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH Editorial Board/ Editorial Council
  • No editor who holds the office of Chief Editor in another journal may at the same time be member of BULLETIN OF REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH Editorial Board/ Editorial Council
  • No editor who makes final decisions on publication of papers in another journal may at the same time be member of BULLETIN OF REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH Editorial Board/ Editorial Council
  • All potential members of BULLETIN OF REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH Editorial Board/ Editorial Council should be willing to provide to the editorial office information on all their potential and actual conflict of interest (e.g., information about any publication activity for academic journals and books, membership in other journals’ editorial boards/ councils, and about any conflict of interest which may arise following their appointment).

All potential Editorial Board/ Editorial Council members have to answer the following questions:

Duties of Editorial Board/ Editorial Council members:

  • Publish one paper a year to support our Journal
  • Review papers in their field of research if no external reviewers are available. Each Editorial Board/ Editorial Council member shall be given a maximum of 2 manuscripts per year for review. Reviewing shall be conducted as per BULLETIN OF REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH Reviewing Policy in effect
  • When requested to do so by Executive Secretary, select reviewers for incoming papers and follow up the reviewing process
  • Once all rounds of reviewing process have been completed, make a decision as to whether the paper is to be published. Members’ decisions are forwarded to Chief Editor who makes a final publication decision
  • Invite authors and reviewers to cooperate with our Journal.

Any Editorial Board/ Editorial Council member may be dismissed of any of the following takes place:

  • Breach of publication ethics: concealing a conflict of interest or using one’s position to one’s personal benefit
  • Failure to perform one’s duties for a period of one year with no valid reason and no consent expressed by Chief Editor
  • Editorial Board/ Editorial Council member wishes to step down.

Rights and privileges granted to Editorial Board/ Editorial Council members:

  • Papers authored by BULLETIN OF REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH Editorial Board/ Editorial Council members will be given priority in the queue for reviewing
  • BULLETIN OF REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH will pay for translating one paper a year into English
  • Editorial Board/ Editorial Council members may participate in events organised by BULLETIN OF REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH or the Journal’s Founder free of charge
  • Any Editorial Board/ Editorial Council member may serve as invited editor for a special issue of BULLETIN OF REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH
  • Details of Editorial Board/ Editorial Council members will be posted at BULLETIN OF REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH website; links to their profiles and details of their affiliated institutions and other necessary information will be communicated to databases.

Nominations to Editorial Board/ Editorial Council membership shall be decided at a regular Editorial Board/ Editorial Council meeting.

Final appointment to Editorial Board/ Editorial Council is made by Chief Editor.

 

Duties of our editors 

Any BULLETIN OF REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH editor shall independently and personally bear responsibility to make publication decisions. Final publication decisions are made by Chief Editor.

BULLETIN OF REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH editors shall follow the Journal’s policy when reviewing a paper and determining whether it is to be published.

An editor may discuss a paper and a reviewer’s comments with other editors or reviewers, provided that such discussions are justified and lawful. An editor cannot use for their personal benefit any materials being so discussed.

BULLETIN OF REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH editors must evaluate a manuscript without regard to the author’s race, gender, sexuality, religion, origin, nationality or political preferences.

BULLETIN OF REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH editors must adhere to confidentiality requirements and cannot disclose to third parties (except other editors, reviewers, Publisher and Founder) any information about a manuscript, unless they have a valid reason to do so.

BULLETIN OF REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH editors must inform Chief Editor about any conflicts, about any critical errors identified in a paper and about any incoming communication alerting to a suspected breach of publication ethics by an author or a reviewer, so that the Journal may take appropriate steps such as correction, refutation, retraction, or expression of concern.

BULLETIN OF REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH editors shall take part in the investigation of any breach of ethics that concerns a manuscript under review or a published paper and shall make every effort to achieve a prompt resolution of conflicts. If necessary, BULLETIN OF REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH editors shall cooperate with the author’s institutions to conduct an in-depth inquiry. 

 

Responsibilities of the Publisher

BULLETIN OF REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH Publisher is responsible for adherence to all existing guidelines and requirements as to integrity of research papers published by the Journal.

The Publisher shall follow BULLETIN OF REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH policies regarding compensation for manuscript preparation and publication and regarding income generated by commercials and reprints. BULLETIN OF REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH Publisher shall not let any potential income from commercials and reprints affect the editors’ publication decisions.

BULLETIN OF REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH Publisher shall not interfere with the editorial process; however, when necessary and when requested to do so by editors, the Publisher may take part in investigations into alleged violations of editorial ethics and may on its own behalf forward formal requests to scientific or educational institutions and to other publishers.

BULLETIN OF REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH Publisher shall contribute to improvement of the Journal’s ethical practices by embracing industry standards and integrating them into the Publisher’s operations.

Where necessary, BULLETIN OF REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH Publisher shall provide comprehensive legal support to the Journal’s editorial office.

 

Responsibilities of the Founder

BULLETIN OF REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH Founder shall uphold the principle of editorial independence: neither the Founder’s director nor its staff shall interfere with the editorial process.

BULLETIN OF REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH Founder may nominate potential Editorial Board/ Editorial Council members, reviewers or authors; however, any final decision to accept such nominations is made by Chief Editor.

BULLETIN OF REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH Founder embraces the relevance of ensuring geographic and gender diversity within Editorial Board/ Editorial Council membership and among reviewers and authors.

BULLETIN OF REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH Founder shall not prioritise financial or political gain over the quality of our Journal. BULLETIN OF REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH editors shall make publication decisions with regard to manuscripts based on their quality and relevance for the Journal’s target audience.

BULLETIN OF REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH Founder shall not interfere with the editorial process; however, when necessary and when requested to do so by editors, the Founder may take part in investigations into alleged violations of editorial ethics and may on its own behalf forward formal requests to scientific or educational institutions and to other publishers.

 

Publication Fee

The journal use traditional subscription mode for publication and distribution of articles and issues. So, publication in "Bulletin of Reproductive Health" journal is free of charge for all authors.

The "Bulletin of Reproductive Health" journal charge no publication fees for authors - including those of peer-review management, manuscript processing, journal production, online hosting and archiving.

If an article from non-Russian authors (also co-authored) it will be published in Open Access from the moment of Published Ahead-of-Print (free of charge option).

 

CrossMark

CrossMark is a multi-publisher initiative from Crossref, provides a standard way for readers to locate the authoritative version of an article or other published content. By applying the CrossMark logo, journal "Bulletin of Reproductive Health" is committing to maintaining the content it publishes and to alerting readers to changes if and when they occur.

Clicking the CrossMark logo on a document will tell you its current status and may also give you additional publication-record information about the document.



11, Dm. Ul’yanova str., Moscow, Russian Federation, 117036

Processing of personal data
supported by NEICON (Elpub lab)