- » Aim and Scope
- » Section Policies
- » Publication Frequency
- » Archiving
- » Peer-Review
- » Publishing Ethics
- » Founder
- » Author fees
- » Disclosure and Conflict of Interest
- » Plagiarism detection
- » Preprint and postprint Policy
- » Revenue Sources
Aim and Scope
The mission of Medical Robotics Magazine
The mission of Medical Robotics Magazine is to promote scientific research, innovative technologies and practical applications of robotic systems in medicine. We strive to become a platform for the exchange of knowledge, ideas and experience between specialists in the field of medicine, robotics and related disciplines. Our goal is to contribute to improving the quality of medical care, improving the effectiveness of treatment and diagnostic processes, as well as reducing risks for patients and medical staff.
Value and contribution to the scientific community and public health
- Innovation and progress: The journal promotes the introduction of advanced technologies, which allows for improved methods of diagnosis, treatment and rehabilitation of patients.
- Education and training of specialists: The publication of scientific articles and reviews helps to train a new generation of doctors, engineers and scientists, contributing to the development of an interdisciplinary approach in medicine.
- Knowledge sharing: The journal provides a platform for the exchange of research results and practical experience between scientists and practitioners, which accelerates the introduction of new technologies into medical practice.
- Improving the quality of medical care: Publications in the journal contribute to improving treatment and diagnostic methods, which ultimately leads to an improvement in the quality of life of patients.
- Public health: The introduction of robotic systems in medicine helps to reduce the burden on medical personnel, improve the accuracy and speed of diagnosis and treatment, and improve patient safety.
Section Policies
Open SubmissionsPublication Frequency
4 times per year
Archiving
- Russian State Library (RSL)
- National Electronic-Information Consortium (NEICON)
Peer-Review
All scientific articles submitted to the editorial board of the journal undergo mandatory double-blind review (the reviewer does not know the authors of the manuscript, the authors of the manuscript do not know the reviewers).
- Articles are reviewed by members of the editorial board and the editorial board, as well as invited reviewers, leading experts in the relevant field of medicine in Russia and other countries. The decision on the choice of a reviewer for the examination of the article is made by the editor-in-chief, deputy editor-in-chief, scientific editor, head of the editorial office. The review period is 2-4 weeks, but it can be extended at the request of the reviewer.
- Each reviewer has the right to withdraw from a review in the event of a clear conflict of interest affecting the perception and interpretation of the manuscript materials. Based on the results of the review of the manuscript, the reviewer makes recommendations on the future of the article (each decision of the reviewer is justified):
- the article is recommended for publication in its present form;
- the article is recommended for publication after correcting the shortcomings noted by the reviewer;
- the article needs additional review by another specialist;
- the article cannot be published in the journal.
- If the review contains recommendations for correcting and finalizing the article, the editorial board of the journal sends the text of the review to the author with a proposal to take them into account when preparing a new version of the article or to refute them (partially or completely). The revision of the article should not take more than 2 months from the moment of sending an e-mail to the authors about the need to make changes. The article revised by the author is re-sent for review.
- If the authors refuse to finalize the materials, they must notify the editorial board in writing or orally of their refusal to publish the article. If the authors do not return the revised version after 3 months from the date of sending the review, even if there is no information from the authors with a refusal to finalize the article, the editorial board removes it from the register. In such situations, an appropriate notification is sent to the authors about the withdrawal of the manuscript from registration due to the expiration of the deadline for revision.
- If the author and the reviewers have unresolved contradictions regarding 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 that is not recommended for publication by the decision of the editorial board is not accepted for reconsideration. A notice of refusal to publish is sent to the author by e-mail.
- After the decision of the editorial board of the journal to allow the article to be published, the editorial board informs the author about it and indicates the date of publication.
- The presence of a positive review is not a sufficient reason for the publication of the article. The final decision on publication is made by the editorial board. In conflict situations, the decision is made by the editor-in-chief.
- The original reviews are kept in the editorial office of the journal for 3 years.
Publishing Ethics
This section is based on the materials of the Elsevier Scientific and medical literature publishing house, as well as on the materials of the International Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE)
- Introduction
1.1. The publication of materials in peer-reviewed journals is not only an easy way of scientific communication, but also makes a significant contribution to the development of the relevant field of scientific knowledge. Thus, it is important to set standards for the future ethical behavior of all parties involved in the publication, namely: Authors, Editors of the journal, Reviewers, Publishers and Scientific Society for the journal Neurosurgery
1.2. The publisher not only supports scientific communication and invests in this process, but is also responsible for following all current recommendations in the published work.
1.3. The publisher undertakes obligations for the strictest supervision of scientific materials. Our journal programs provide an unbiased "report" on the development of scientific thought and research, so we are also aware of the responsibility to properly present these "reports", especially in terms of the ethical aspects of the publications outlined in this document.
- Duties of Editors
2.1. Decision on publication
The editor of the scientific journal "Neurosurgery" is personally and independently responsible for making the decision on publication, often in collaboration with the relevant Scientific Society. The reliability of the work in question and its scientific significance should always underlie the decision to publish. The editor may be guided by the policy of the Editorial Board of the Journal of Neurosurgery, being limited by current legal requirements regarding libel, copyright, legality and plagiarism.
The editor may confer with other Editors and Reviewers (or officials of the Scientific Society) during the decision on publication.
2.2. Decency
The editor should evaluate the intellectual content of the manuscripts regardless of race, gender, sexual orientation, religious beliefs, origin, citizenship or political preferences of the Authors.
2.3. Confidentiality
The editor and the Editorial Board of the journal "Neurosurgery" are obligated not to disclose information about the accepted manuscript unnecessarily to all persons, with the exception of the Authors, Reviewers, possible Reviewers, other scientific consultants and the Publisher.
2.4. Disclosure Policy and Conflicts of Interest
2.4.1 Unpublished data obtained from submitted manuscripts may not be used in personal research without the written consent of the Author. Information or ideas obtained during the review process and related to possible benefits should be kept confidential and not used for personal gain.
2.4.2 Editors should recuse themselves from reviewing manuscripts (namely, request a Co-editor, Assistant Editor, or collaborate with other members of the Editorial Board when reviewing a paper instead of reviewing and deciding on it themselves) in the event of conflicts of interest due to competitive, collaborative, and other interactions and relationships with Authors, companies, and possibly other organizations related to the manuscript.
2.5. Supervision of publications
An editor who has provided convincing evidence that the statements or conclusions presented in the publication are erroneous should inform the Publisher (and/or the relevant Scientific Society) about this in order to notify them as soon as possible of changes, withdrawal of the publication, expression of concern and other relevant statements.
2.6. Engagement and collaboration in research
The Editor, together with the Publisher (or the Scientific Society), takes adequate response measures in case of ethical claims concerning the reviewed manuscripts or published materials. Such measures generally include interaction with
The authors of the manuscript and the argumentation of the relevant complaint or claim, but may also involve interaction with relevant organizations and research centers.
- Responsibilities of Reviewers
3.1. Influence on the decisions of the Editorial Board
Reviewing helps the Editor make a decision about publication and, through appropriate interaction with the Authors, can also help the Author improve the quality of the work. Peer review is a necessary link in formal scientific communication, located at the very "heart" of the scientific approach. The publisher shares the view that all scientists who want to contribute to the publication are required to do substantial work on reviewing the manuscript.
3.2. Compliance
Any selected Reviewer who feels insufficiently qualified to review the manuscript or does not have enough time to complete the work quickly should notify the Editor of the journal "Neurosurgery" and ask to be excluded from the review process of the relevant manuscript.
3.3. Confidentiality
Any manuscript received for review should be treated as a confidential document. This work should not be opened or discussed with anyone who is not authorized to do so by the Editor.
3.4. Requirements for the manuscript and objectivity
The reviewer is obliged to give an objective assessment. Personal criticism of the Author is unacceptable. Reviewers should express their opinions clearly and reasonably.
3.5. Recognition of primary sources
Reviewers should identify significant published works that correspond to the topic and are not included in the bibliography of the manuscript. Any statement (observation, conclusion, or argument) published earlier should have a corresponding bibliographic reference in the manuscript. The Reviewer should also draw the Editor's attention to the discovery of significant similarities or coincidences between the manuscript under consideration and any other published work within the Reviewer's scientific competence.
3.6. Disclosure Policy and Conflicts of Interest
3.6.1 Unpublished data obtained from submitted manuscripts may not be used in personal research without the written consent of the Author. Information or ideas obtained during the review process and related to possible benefits should be kept confidential and not used for personal gain.
3.6.2. Reviewers should not participate in the review of manuscripts in case of conflicts of interest due to competitive, joint and other interactions and relationships with any of the Authors, companies or other organizations related to the submitted work.
- Responsibilities of the Authors
4.1. Requirements for manuscripts
4.1.1 The authors of the original research report should provide reliable results of the work done, as well as an objective discussion of the significance of the study. The data underlying the work must be presented accurately. The work should contain sufficient details and bibliographic references for possible reproduction. False or knowingly erroneous statements are perceived as unethical behavior and unacceptable.
4.1.2. Reviews and scientific articles should also be accurate and objective, and the Editorial Board's point of view should be clearly indicated.
4.2. Data access and storage
Raw data relevant to the manuscript may be requested from the Authors for review by the Editors. Authors should be prepared to provide open access to this kind of information (according to the ALPSP-STM Statement on Data and Databases), if feasible, and in any case be prepared to retain this data for an adequate period of time after publication.
4.3. Originality and plagiarism
4.3.1 Authors should ensure that the original work is presented in full and, in the case of using works or statements by other Authors, should provide appropriate bibliographic references or excerpts.
4.3.2 Plagiarism can exist in many forms, from presenting someone else's work as copyrighted to copying or paraphrasing essential parts of someone else's work (without attribution) to claiming one's own rights to the results of someone else's research. Plagiarism in all forms is unethical and unacceptable.
4.4. Multiplicity, redundancy and simultaneity of publications
4.4.1 In general, an author should not publish a manuscript, mostly devoted to the same research, in more than one journal as an original publication. Submitting the same manuscript to more than one journal at the same time is perceived as unethical behavior and unacceptable.
4.4.2. In general, an author should not submit a previously published article for review in another journal.
4.4.3. The publication of a certain type of articles (for example, clinical recommendations, translated articles) in more than one journal is in some cases ethical under certain conditions. Authors and editors of interested journals should agree to a secondary publication that necessarily presents the same data and interpretations as in the first published work.
The bibliography of the primary work should also be presented in the second publication. More detailed information about acceptable forms of secondary (repeated) publications can be found on the page www.icmje.org .
4.5. Recognition of primary sources
It is always necessary to acknowledge the contributions of others. Authors should refer to publications that are relevant to the performance of the submitted work. Data obtained privately, for example, during conversations, correspondence, or discussions with third parties, should not be used or presented without the express written permission of the original source. Information obtained from confidential sources, such as the evaluation of manuscripts or the provision of grants, should not be used without the express written permission of the Authors of the work related to confidential sources.
4.6. Authorship of the publication
4.6.1 The authors of the publication may only be persons who have made a significant contribution to the formation of the idea of the work, the development, execution or interpretation of the submitted research. All those who have made significant contributions should be designated as Co-authors. In cases where study participants have made significant contributions in a particular area of the research project, they should be listed as individuals who have made significant contributions to this study.
4.6.2. The author must make sure that all participants who have made a significant contribution to the study are represented as Co-authors and not those who did not participate in the study are listed as Co-authors, that all Co-authors have seen and approved the final version of the work and agreed to submit it for publication.
4.7. Risks, as well as people and animals that are the objects of research
4.7.1 If the work involves the use of chemical products, procedures, or equipment that may pose an unusual risk, the author should clearly indicate this in the manuscript.
4.7.2 If the work involves the participation of animals or humans as objects of research, the authors should make sure that the manuscript indicates that all stages of research comply with legislation and regulatory documents of research organizations, as well as approved by the relevant committees. The manuscript should clearly
reflect that informed consent has been obtained from all people who have become research subjects. It is always necessary to ensure that the rights to privacy are respected.
4.8. Disclosure Policy and Conflicts of Interest
4.8.1 All Authors are required to disclose in their manuscripts financial or other existing conflicts of interest that may be perceived as having an impact on the results or conclusions presented in the work.
4.8.2 Examples of potential conflicts of interest that must be disclosed include employment, consulting, joint-stock ownership, royalties, expert opinion, patent application or patent registration, grants, and other financial support. Potential conflicts of interest should be disclosed as early as possible.
4.9. Significant errors in published works
If the Author finds significant errors or inaccuracies in the publication, the Author must inform the Editor of the journal "Neurosurgery" and interact with the Editor in order to withdraw the publication as soon as possible or correct the errors. If the Editor or Publisher has received information from a third party that the publication contains significant errors, the Author is obliged to withdraw the work or correct the errors as soon as possible.
- Responsibilities of the Publishing House
5.1 The Publisher must follow the principles and procedures that facilitate the performance of ethical duties by Editors,
Reviewers and Authors of the Journal of Neurosurgery in accordance with these requirements. The publisher must be sure that the potential profit from advertising or reprint production has not influenced the Editors' decisions.
5.2. The Publisher should provide support to the Editors of the journal "Neurosurgery" in reviewing claims to the ethical aspects of published materials and help them interact with other journals and/or Publishers if this contributes to the fulfillment of the duties of Editors.
5.3. The Publisher should promote good research practices and implement industry standards in order to improve ethical guidelines, procedures for the removal and correction of errors.
5.4 The publisher should provide appropriate specialized legal support (opinion or advice), if necessary.
Founder
- Pushkar Dmitry Yurievich
Author fees
Publication in “Medical Robotics" is free of charge for all the authors.
The journal doesn't have any Article 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
“Medical Robotics" 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
The editorial board of the “Medical Robotics" 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 “Medical Robotics" 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 “Medical Robotics".
The author must notify the editorial board of the “Medical Robotics" 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 “Medical Robotics" 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 “Medical Robotics".
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 “Medical Robotics" 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.
Revenue Sources
The publication of the journal is financed by the funds of the parent organization, at the expense of the publisher, publication of advertising materials, publication of reprints.
