Consortium Psychiatricum



Peer Review Process

A double-blind peer review method is mandatory for processing of all scientific manuscripts submitted to the editorial staff of “Consortium Psychiatricum”. 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. Peer review process is confidential. Reviewers are notified, that manuscripts received for review are authors’ intellectual property and not subject for disclosure. Reviewers are not allowed to make copies of manuscripts to be used for their own purposes. Violation of confidentiality is possible only in case of a statement of inaccuracy or falsification of materials. The author of a submitted manuscript is given the opportunity to read the review.

3. Reviewer has an option to abnegate the assessment should any conflict of interests arise that may affect perception or interpretation of the manuscript.

4. 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 invite 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.

5. 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.

6. 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.

7. If author and reviewers meet insoluble contradictions regarding revision of the manuscript, the editorial board may send the manuscript for further reviewing. The editor-in-chief resolves conflicts by his own authority at the editorial board meeting.

8. 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.

9. Upon the decision to accept the manuscript for publishing, the editorial staff notifies the authors of the scheduled date of publication.

10. Kindly note that positive review does not guarantee the acceptance, as final decision in all cases lies with the editorial board. By his authority, the editor-in-chief rules final solution of every conflict.

11. Manuscripts are not accepted for publication if:

  • they do not meet the requirements for publication, and the authors refuse to implement technical refinements;
  • authors do not implement the corrections recommended by reviewers or dispute them reasonably.    

12. Reviews can be sent to the Ministry of Science and Higher Education of the Russian Federation when requested.

13. Original reviews of submitted manuscripts remain deposited for 5 years.