- » Aim and Scope
- » Section Policies
- » Publication Frequency
- » Open Access Policy
- » Archiving
- » Peer-Review
- » Indexation
- » Publishing Ethics
- » Founder
- » Author fees
- » Regulation on Conflict of Interest
- » Borrowings and plagiarism
- » Preprint and postprint Policy
- » CrossMark
- » Principles on informed consent
- » Human Rights Policy
- » Subscription
- » Article retraction policy
Aim and Scope
The Atherothrombosis Journal was founded in 2008 by the National Society for Atherosclerosis with support from the Russian Society of Cardiology (RSC), the Russian Society of Angiologists and Vascular Surgeons (RCAVS) and the National Stroke Association (NSA).
The aim of the journal is to present the scientific position about the development of measures that can be taken to prevent and treat atherothrombosis, and deliver education to practitioners and cardiologists, cardiovascular surgeons and neurologists based on the publication of the results of modern evidence-based studies and international consensus paper.
Priority objectives of the Journal are to:
- enhance the scientific and practical qualifications of cardiologists, general practitioners, neurologists and cardiovascular surgeons;
- ensure the publication of the results of the original studies in the field of diagnosis and treatment of diseases accompanied by the development of atherothrombosis;
- share practical experience of practitioners, provide a thorough introduction of features of the medical services in the various regions of Russia and abroad;
- inform readers about the latest protocols, standards and guidelines of international medical societies in the field of diagnosis and treatment of atherothrombosis;
The scientific concept of the Journal involves the publication of the results of modern evidence-based studies in the field of atherothrombosis, welcoming the leading domestic and international experts to discuss them, the formation of national consensus papers.
Professor N.A. Gratsianskiy has been working as the editor-in-chief, prof. E.P. Panchenko and prof. I.S. Yavelov as deputy editor-in-chives since its founding.
The journal was published irregularly until 2013. The first sections included «Original articles», «In aid of a practitioner», «Athero-schools echo». The journal has been published by «The Group Remedium» starting from 2013, and since then it been published on a regular basis every half year. The journal expanded the group of sections by adding new ones: «Venous thrombosis and thromboembolism», «Acute coronary syndrome», «Control of antithrombotic therapy», «Clinical case» etc. In addition to the original and review articles, new forms of information presentation have been added, for example, slide comments, which made the journal more informative for a wide medical audience. the journal has been included in the "List of peer-reviewed scientific journals, which should publish the results of dissertations for the degree of doctor and candidate of medical sciences" since December 2015.
Foreign and domestic specialists working in the field of cardiology, neurology, laboratory diagnostics, cardiovascular surgery, clinical pharmacology, internal diseases publish their works in the journal.
Section Policies
 Open Submissions |
Indexed |
Peer Reviewed |
Publication Frequency
2 issues per year
Open Access Policy
Atherothrombosis (Aterotromboz) is an open access journal. All articles are made freely available to readers immediatly upon publication.
Our open access policy is in accordance with the Budapest Open Access Initiative (BOAI) definition - it means that articles have free availability on the public internet, permitting any users to read, download, copy, distribute, print, search, or link to the full texts of these articles, crawl them for indexing, pass them as data to software, or use them for any other lawful purpose, without financial, legal, or technical barriers other than those inseparable from gaining access to the internet itself.
For more information please read BOAI statement.
Archiving
- Russian State Library (RSL)
- National Electronic-Information Consortium (NEICON)
Peer-Review
1. General provisions
1.1 All manuscripts submitted to the journal are sent for one-sided blind review (the reviewer knows the names of the authors of the manuscript, the authors of the manuscript do not know the names of the reviewers).
1.2 Both members of the Editorial Board of the journal and external reviewers with the degree of candidate or doctor of sciences, having sufficient experience of scientific work in the field of science stated in the article, are involved in reviewing. All reviewers are familiar with the requirements of the journal editors to the published materials and have been published on the subject of the article under review during the last 3 years. The decision on the choice of one or another reviewer for the expert evaluation of the article is made by the editor-in-chief, head-editor and responsible for the issue. The review period is from 2 to 4 weeks, but at the request of the reviewer it can be extended.
1.3 Specialists working in the same research institution where the research work was carried out are not involved in reviewing.
1.4 The reviewers are informed that the manuscripts sent to them belong to the information that is not subject to disclosure.
1.5 Each reviewer has the right to refuse the review in case of an obvious conflict of interests that affects the perception and interpretation of the manuscript materials.
1.6 If the review contains recommendations for correction and modification of the article, the editorial board of the journal sends the author of the review the text of the review with a suggestion to take them into account in the preparation of a new version of the article or to refute them (partially or fully). Finalization of the article should not take more than 2 months from the date of sending an electronic message to the author about the need to make changes. The article improved by the author is repeatedly sent for review.
1.7 If the authors refuse to finalize the materials, they must notify the editorial board in written or oral form of their refusal to publish the article. If the authors do not return the finalized version after 2 months from the date of sending the review, even in the absence of information from the authors with the refusal to finalize the article, the editorial office removes it from the register. In such situations, the authors are sent a corresponding notice of the removal of the manuscript from the registration in connection with the expiration of the period of time allotted for revision.
2. Review procedure
2.1 All the articles received by the Editorial Board are registered, after which they are reviewed by the head editor or editor-in-chief, who decide to send the manuscript to the members of the Editorial Board.
2.2 Members of the Editorial Board have the right to review the manuscript themselves, or to give their suggestions on sending the article to an external reviewer (reviewers) - a specialist on the subject of the article under review.
2.3 After approval by the editor-in-chief of the reviewer's candidacy, the executive secretary, in agreement with the reviewer, sends him the text of the article by e-mail. Each manuscript is submitted to two peer reviewers for assessment.
2.4 The text of the review is submitted to the editorial board in paper form with personal signature or electronically from the reviewer's postal address. The content of the review is considered by the editorial board, which takes one of the decisions:
- to accept the article for publication without corrections;
- send the article for additional review;
- return the article to the author for correction of the reviewer's remarks;
- reject the article.
2.5 The authors of the articles are obliged to get acquainted with the reviews, for which purpose the responsible secretary of the editorial office sends the text of the review and the cover letter, as well as the text of the article with the comments of the editor, requiring improvement, in print form or by e-mail to the author(s).
2.6 In case of disagreement with the conclusions of the reviewer, the author may send a reasoned response to his comments to the journal. The decision on further review of the article is made by the head editor or editor-in-chief.
2.7 If the authors agree with the reviewer's comments, they have the right to amend the article and submit it again. In this case, the review procedure is repeated.
2.8 In case of minor comments requiring only editorial changes and with the consent of the authors, a decision may be made to accept the article for publication.
3. Review structure
3.1 The review may be written in any form, but it must reflect:
- relevance of the issues considered in the article;
- correspondence of the presented results to the declared subject of the article;
- compliance with the accepted standard of registration of article references;
- scientific contribution of authors: presence and significance of new scientific results presented in the article, received personally by the author (group of authors);
- validity of conclusions;
- presence of a clear and understandable rubrication;
- correctness of terminology, clarity of presentation, language style;
- completeness and clarity of the presented graphic material;
3.2 The review should end with a recommendation:
- about the possibility of publishing the article without changes;
- about the possibility of publishing the article taking into account the corrections made by the author (without repeated review or with repeated review);
- on the refusal to publish the article to the authors.
3.3 The decision on the expediency of publication after the review is made by the editorial board. An article not recommended for publication by the Editorial Board is not accepted for reconsideration. The notification of refusal to publish is sent to the author by e-mail. After the Editorial Board of the Journal makes a decision on the acceptance of the article for publication, the Editorial Board informs the author about it and indicates the dates of publication.
3.4 All reviews are kept in the editorial office for five years.
Policy updated: 08/30/2021
Indexation
Articles in Atherothrombosis (Aterotromboz) are indexed by several systems:
- Russian Scientific Citation Index (RSCI) – a database, accumulating information on papers by Russian scientists, published in native and foreign titles. The RSCI project is under development since 2005 by “Electronic Scientific Library” foundation (elibrary.ru).
- Google Scholar is a freely accessible web search engine that indexes the full text of scholarly literature across an array of publishing formats and disciplines. The Google Scholar index includes most peer-reviewed online journals of Europe and America's largest scholarly publishers, plus scholarly books and other non-peer reviewed journals.
- Base
- Cyberleninka
- Dimensions
- IPRbooks
- SOCIONET
- VINITI RAS
Publishing Ethics
The Publication Ethics and Publication Malpractice Statement of the journal Atherothrombosis (Aterotromboz) are based on the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) Code of Conduct guidelines available at www.publicationethics.org, and requirements for peer-reviewed medical journals ((http://health.elsevier.ru/attachments/editor/file/ethical_code_final.pdf), elaborated by the "Elsevier" Publishing House (in accordance with international ethical rules of scientific publications)
The section is prepared according to the files of Elsevier publisher (https://www.elsevier.com/) and files (http://publicationethics.org/resources) from Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE - http://publicationethics.org/).
1. Introduction
1.1. The publication in a peer reviewed learned journal, serves many purposes outside of simple communication. It is a building block in the development of a coherent and respected network of knowledge. For all these reasons and more it is important to lay down standards of expected ethical behaviour by all parties involved in the act of publishing: the author, the journal editor, the peer reviewer, the publisher and the society for society-owned or sponsored journal: Atherothrombosis (Aterotromboz)
1.2.Publisher has a supporting, investing and nurturing role in the scholarly communication process but is also ultimately responsible for ensuring that best practice is followed in its publications.
1.3. Publisher takes its duties of guardianship over the scholarly record extremely seriously. Our journal programmes record «the minutes of science» and we recognise our responsibilities as the keeper of those «minutes» in all our policies not least the ethical guidelines that we have here adopted.
2. Duties of Editors
2.1.Publication decision – The Editor of a learned Atherothrombosis (Aterotromboz) is solely and independently responsible for deciding which of the articles submitted to the journal should be published, often working on conjunction with the relevant society (for society-owned or sponsored journals). The validation of the work in question and its importance to researchers and readers must always underwrite such decisions. The Editor may be guided by the policies of the Atherothrombosis (Aterotromboz)) journal’s editorial board and constrained by such legal requirements as shall then be in force regarding libel, copyright infringement and plagiarism. The editor may confer with other editors or reviewers (or society officers) in making this decision.
2.2.Fair play – An editor should evaluate manuscripts for their intellectual content without regard to race, gender, sexual orientation, religious belief, ethnic origin, citizenship, or political philosophy of the authors.
2.3.Confidentiality – The editor and any editorial staff of Atherothrombosis (Aterotromboz) must not disclose any information about a submitted manuscript to anyone other than the corresponding author, reviewers, potential reviewers, other editorial advisers, and the publisher, as appropriate.
2.4.Disclosure and Conflicts of interest
2.4.1. Unpublished materials disclosed in a submitted manuscript must not be used in an editor’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.
2.4.2. Editors should recuse themselves (i.e. should ask a co-editor, associate editor or other member of the editorial board instead to review and consider) from considering manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies, or (possibly) institutions connected to the papers.
2.5.Vigilance over published record – An editor presented with convincing evidence that the substance or conclusions of a published paper are erroneous should coordinate with the publisher (and/or society) to promote the prompt publication of a correction, retraction, expression of concern, or other note, as may be relevant.
2.6.Involvement and cooperation in investigations – An editor should take reasonably responsive measures when ethical complaints have been presented concerning a submitted manuscript or published paper, in conjunction with the publisher (or society). Such measures will generally include contacting the author of the manuscript or paper and giving due consideration of the respective complaint or claims made, but may also include further communications to the relevant institutions and research bodies.
3. Duties of Reviewers
3.1.Contribution to Editorial Decisions – Peer review assists the editor in making editorial decisions and through the editorial communications with the author may also assist the author in improving the paper. Peer review is an essential component of formal scholarly communication, and lies at the heart of the scientific method. Publisher shares the view of many that all scholars who wish to contribute to publications have an obligation to do a fair share of reviewing.
3.2.Promptness – Any selected referee who feels unqualified to review the research reported in a manuscript or knows that its prompt review will be impossible should notify the editor of Atherothrombosis (Aterotromboz) and excuse himself from the review process.
3.3.Confidentiality – Any manuscripts received for review must be treated as confidential documents. They must not be shown to or discussed with others except as authorised by the editor.
3.4.Standard and objectivity – Reviews should be conducted objectively. Personal criticism of the author is inappropriate. Referees should express their views clearly with supporting arguments.
3.5.Acknowledgement of Sources – Reviewers should identify relevant published work that has not been cited by the authors. Any statement that an observation, derivation, or argument had been previously reported should be accompanied by the relevant citation. A reviewer should also call to the editor’s attention any substantial similarity or overlap between the manuscript under consideration and any other published paper of which they have personal knowledge.
3.6.Disclosure and Conflict of Interest
3.6.1.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.
3.6.2. 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.
4. Duties of Authors
4.1.Reporting standards
4.1.1. Authors of reports of original research should present an accurate account of the work performed as well as an objective discussion of its significance. Underlying data should be represented accurately in the paper. A paper should contain sufficient detail and references to permit others to replicate the work. Fraudulent or knowingly inaccurate statements constitute unethical behaviour and are unacceptable.
4.1.2. Review and professional publication articles should also be accurate and objective, and editorial 'opinion’ works should be clearly identified as such.
4.2.Data Access and Retention – Authors may be asked to provide the raw data in connection with a paper for editorial review, and should be prepared to provide public access to such data (consistent with the ALPSP-STM Statement on Data and Databases), if practicable, and should in any event be prepared to retain such data for a reasonable time after publication.
4.3.Originality and Plagiarism
4.3.1. The authors should ensure that they have written entirely original works, and if the authors have used the work and/or words of others, this has been appropriately cited or quoted.
4.3.2. Plagiarism takes many forms, from ‘passing off’ another’s 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 behaviour and is unacceptable.
4.4.Multiple, Redundant or Concurrent Publication
4.4.1. An author should not in general publish manuscripts describing essentially the same research in more than one journal of primary publication. Submitting the same manuscript to more than one journal concurrently constitutes unethical publishing behaviour and is unacceptable.
4.4.2. In general, an author should not submit for consideration in another journal a previously published paper.
4.4.3. Publication of some kinds of articles (eg, clinical guidelines, translations) in more than one journal is sometimes justifiable, provided certain conditions are met. The authors and editors of the journals concerned must agree to the secondary publication, which must reflect the same data and interpretation of the primary document. The primary reference must be cited in the secondary publication. Further detail on acceptable forms of secondary publication can be found at www.icmje.org.
4.5.Acknowledgement of Sources – Proper acknowledgment of the work of others must always be given. Authors should cite publications that have been influential in determining the nature of the reported work. Information obtained privately, as in conversation, correspondence, or discussion with third parties, must not be used or reported without explicit, written permission from the source. Information obtained in the course of confidential services, such as refereeing manuscripts or grant applications, must not be used without the explicit written permission of the author of the work involved in these services.
4.6.Authorship of the Paper
4.6.1. Authorship should be limited to those who have made a significant contribution to the conception, design, execution, or interpretation of the reported study. All those who have made significant contributions should be listed as co-authors. Where there are others who have participated in certain substantive aspects of the research project, they should be acknowledged or listed as contributors.
4.6.2. The corresponding author should ensure that all appropriate co-authors and no inappropriate co-authors are included on the paper, and that all co-authors have seen and approved the final version of the paper and have agreed to its submission for publication.
4.7.Hazards and Human or Animal Subjects
4.7.1. If the work involves chemicals, procedures or equipment that have any unusual hazards inherent in their use, the author must clearly identify these in the manuscript.
4.7.2. If the work involves the use of animal or human subjects, the author should ensure that the manuscript contains a statement that all procedures were performed in compliance with relevant laws and institutional guidelines and that the appropriate institutional committee(s) have approved them. Authors should include a statement in the manuscript that informed consent was obtained for experimentation with human subjects. The privacy rights of human subjects must always be observed.
4.8. Disclosure and Conflicts of Interest
4.8.1. All authors should disclose in their manuscript any financial or other substantive conflict of interest that might be construed to influence the results or interpretation of their manuscript. All sources of financial support for the project should be disclosed.
4.8.2. Examples of potential conflicts of interest which should be disclosed include employment, consultancies, stock ownership, honoraria, paid expert testimony, patent applications/registrations, and grants or other funding. Potential conflicts of interest should be disclosed at the earliest possible stage.
4.9. Fundamental errors in published works – When an author discovers a significant error or inaccuracy in a published work, it is the author’s obligation to promptly notify the editor of Atherothrombosis (Aterotromboz) journal and cooperate with Publisher to retract or correct the paper, If the editor or the publisher learn from a third party that a published work contains a significant error, it is the obligation of the author to promptly retract or correct the paper.
5. Duties of the Publisher (and if relevant, Society)
5.1. Publisher should adopt policies and procedures that support editors, reviewers and authors of Atherothrombosis (Aterotromboz) in performing their ethical duties under these ethics guidelines. The publisher should ensure that the potential for advertising or reprint revenue has no impact or influence on editorial decisions.
5.2. The publisher should support Atherothrombosis (Aterotromboz) journal editors in the review of complaints raised concerning ethical issues and help communications with other journals and/or publishers where this is useful to editors.
5.3. Publisher should develop codes of practice and inculcate industry standards for best practice on ethical matters, errors and retractions.
5.4. Publisher should provide specialised legal review and counsel if necessary.
Founder
- «Repharm Media» Ltd.
Author fees
Publication in journal Atherothrombosis (Aterotromboz) is free of charge for all the authors.
The journal doesn't have any Arcticle processing charges.
Regulation on Conflict of Interest
The author is obliged to notify the editor of a real or potential conflict of interest (conflict of interest is the condition under which the conflicting or competing interests that may affect the editorial decision arise) by including information about the conflict of interest in the relevant section of the article.
Reviewers do not participate in the review of manuscripts in case of conflicts of interest due to competitive, joint and other interactions and relations with any of the authors, companies or other organizations related to the presented work.
If there is no conflict of interest, the author should also report it. Example wording: "The author states that there is no conflict of interest".
Borrowings and plagiarism
The Editorial Board of the journal Atherothrombosis during the consideration of the article makes the verification of the material using the system of Antiplagiarism. In case of multiple borrowings, the editorial board acts in accordance with COPE rules.
Permissible volume of borrowings (including self-quotations), drawn up in accordance with the established rules (with reference to the original source) - no more than 30% of the total volume of the article. The requirement does not apply to reviews. Such materials are considered by the editorial board on an individual basis.
In case of acknowledgement of suspicions on plagiarism or detection of the techniques, allowing to hide its presence, articles are not accepted for the further consideration. The authors are sent a refusal of consideration due to suspicion of plagiarism.
Preprint and postprint Policy
Prior to acceptance and publication in journal Atherothrombosis (Aterotromboz), authors may make their submissions available as preprints on personal or public websites.
As part of submission process, authors are required to confirm that the submission has not been previously published, nor has been submitted. After a manuscript has been published in journal Atherothrombosis (Aterotromboz) we suggest that the link to the DOI.
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 “Atherothrombosis” 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.
Principles on informed consent
The journal "Journal title" relies on the principles of the World Medical Association's (WMA) policy statement - the Declaration of Helsinki - a statement of Ethical Principles for Medical Research Involving Human Subjects) and endeavours to ensure compliance with ethical and data collection standards for research involving human subjects. Before beginning research, the researchers should familiarise themselves with the principles of the Helsinki Declaration on informed consent and carry out the research in strict accordance with those principles as set forth below (Articles 25-32 of the Helsinki Declaration are given):
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/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 his right to refuse to participate in the study or to withdraw his 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 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, verbal consent must be formally documented and witnessed.
All medical 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 when 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.
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 should 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 exceptions where consent would be impossible or impractical to obtain for such research. In such situations, the research may be done only after consideration and approval of a research ethics committee.
Human Rights Policy
When presenting the results of experimental research involving human subjects, the authors should indicate whether the procedures performed adhered to the ethical standards prescribed in the Declaration of Helsinki. If the study was conducted without adherence to the principles of the Declaration, the authors should justify the chosen approach to the study and guarantee that the ethics committee of the organisation in which the study was conducted approved the chosen approach.
Subscription
You can subscribe to the printed version of Atherothrombosis journal:
1. In the Journal Editorial Office
Subscription fee for 2024:
The cost of the annual set for 2024 is 300 rub. 00 kop.
The cost of the set for the 1st half of 2024 is 150 rub. 00 kop.
For registration of a subscription it is necessary:
For legal entities:
- Call (write) the editorial office
- Pay the invoice at the bank
For individuals:
- Fill in the enclosed payment slip
- Pay the receipt at any bank
- Notify the subscription department of the journal delivery address
by phone +7 (495) 780-34-25
by e-mail: podpiska@remedium.ru
2. In any post office of Russia by catalogues:
Catalogue «Пресса России» ("Pressa-RF"), subscription index 80640
Official catalogue of FSUE «Russian Post», subscription index ПА219
3. Our partners have alternative subscription agencies:
LLC «Informnauka», tel. +7 (495) 787-38-73, 152-54-81, www.informnauka.com
LLC «Business Press», Kirov, tel. +7 (8332) 37-72-11,
LLC «Ural-Press», branches in 52 regions of Russia, tel. +7 (495) 789-86-36, www.ural-press.ru
LLC «Ruspressa», tel. +7 (495) 369-11-22
CJSC «Pressinform», tel. +7 (812) 786-58-29
Article retraction policy
Retraction (withdrawal) of an article from publication is a mechanism for correcting published information and notifying readers that the publication contains serious drawbacks or erroneous data that cannot be trusted. The reason for withdrawal of an article may be a duplicate publication, plagiarism, serious errors in research and other violations.
In accordance with the rules of the Ethics Council of the Association of Science Editors and Publishers (ASEP), the grounds for retracting the article are:
- Finding incorrect borrowings (plagiarism) in publications;
- Duplication of the article in several editions;обнаружение в работе фальсификаций или фабрикаций (например, подтасовки экспериментальных данных);
- Detection of serious errors in work (e.g. misinterpretation of results), which calls into question its scientific value;
- Incorrect composition of authors (includes people who do not meet the criteria of authorship);
- Conflicts of interest (and other breaches of publication ethics) are concealed;
- The article was not reviewed.
The main purpose of the retraction is to correct the published information and ensure its integrity, not to punish the authors who have committed violations.
Withdrawal of the article is carried out on the official request of the editorial board of the journal or the author. During the retraction the article remains in the journal, but in the information about the article, in the file, in the databases it is indicated that the article is withdrawn.
The order of retracting articles
1. If the author/authors' team finds it necessary to withdraw an article, they apply to the editorial office, explaining the reason for their decision. If the editorial board does not respond to such a request, the author/authors' team should contact the Scientific Publications Ethics Council. If the editorial board responds to the authors and agrees to the retraction, it will then retract the text itself.
2. If the Editorial Board decides to withdraw the text on the basis of its expertise or the information received, the Editor-in-Chief will inform the authors/authors' team of the decision. The author (lead author in case of collective authorship) will be acquainted with the wording justifying the retraction of the article.
3. if the author/authors' team ignores the request of the editorial office, the editor-in-chief or editor-in-chief requests the assistance of the ASEP Scientific Publications Ethics Council.
4. Having made a decision to withdraw the article, the editorial board indicates the reason for the retraction (in case of plagiarism - with an indication of the sources of borrowing), as well as the date of retraction. The article and the description of the article remain on the journal's website as part of the corresponding issue of the journal, but the electronic version of the text is marked with an inscription RETRACTED and the date of retraction, the same note is put in the index of the issue.
5. The ASEP Scientific Publications Ethics Council, the scientific information databases (NEB, CyberLeninka), as well as all network libraries and databases where the journal is indexed, are provided with the protocol indicating the date of the meeting of the Editorial Board, the composition of the members of the meeting, the results of the examination, a reasoned decision and the completed form:
1. Name of the author and title of the article.
2. Name of the publication from which the text is withdrawn.
3. The initiator of the article withdrawal.
4. The basis for withdrawal of the article and the date of the decision.
5. Link to the page on the website of the publication, where the information about the retraction is given.
6. Output data of the article and DOI (if any).
7. Topics (social sciences; agriculture, etc.).
8. Date of policy update.
