- » Aim and Scope
- » Section Policies
- » Publication Frequency
- » Open Access Policy
- » Archiving
- » Peer-Review
- » Recommendations for Reviewers
- » Indexation
- » Publishing Ethics
- » Founder
- » Author fees
- » Disclosure and Conflict of Interest
- » Plagiarism detection
- » Preprint and postprint Policy
- » Advertising policy
- » Article Retraction
- » Principles on informed consent
- » Human Rights Policy
- » Animal Rights Policy
Aim and Scope
The purpose of the journal is to provide readers with objective scientific information in accordance with the current state of medical science in the field of organ and tissue transplantation. Transplantology unites many sections of both clinical and experimental medicine. New technologies in surgery, anesthesiology and intensive care, laboratory diagnostics, hepatology, pulmonology and other fields of medicine are integrated in transplantology for the treatment and rescue of extremely severe patients with terminal stage of the disease. Organ transplantation is impossible without a program for the development of posthumous donation, improvement of conservation technologies, the development of hardware support for the functioning of donor organs, progress in immunosuppressive therapy. The journal «Transplantologiya. The Russian Journal of Transplantation» aims to inform readers through comprehensive and objective coverage using scientific and practical information about the current state of organ and tissue transplantation in the Russian Federation and the world, about significant events and the use of new technologies in this field, achievements in the development of cellular technologies and improvement cadaveric and living donor organizations.
The main sections of the journal are devoted to topical issues of clinical transplantology, interesting clinical observations, review articles and lectures, the history of transplantology.
On the pages of the journal the reader will find material for the acquisition and improvement of professional knowledge in the field of transplantology, cellular technologies, organization and coordination of organ donation, as well as innovative information for a wide range of specialists working in various fields of medicine.
Section Policies
 Open Submissions |
Indexed |
Peer Reviewed |
| Open Submissions |
Indexed |
Peer Reviewed |
| Open Submissions |
Indexed |
Peer Reviewed |
| Open Submissions |
Indexed |
Peer Reviewed |
| Open Submissions |
Indexed |
Peer Reviewed |
Publication Frequency
4 items per year
Open Access Policy
«Transplantologiya. The Russian Journal of Transplantation» 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
Reviewing procedure for the manuscripts submitted to the Journal «Transplantologiya. The Russian Journal of Transplantation»
All submitted manuscripts considered for publication in the Journal are subject to the double "blind" peer-review process (that is voluntary, independent and unbiased, the confidentiality of the material being kept). Reviewers (or referees) are typically selected from among the Editorial Board members. In addition to these members, outside referees who are experts in the field may also be involved, if necessary.
The materials which are subject to reviewing are forwarded to the selected reviewers by the Executive Secretary of the Journal within 10 working days from the date of manuscript receipt at the Editorial Office.
The reviewers is expected to read it closely and provide his/her individual critiques, comments and opinion on a special Editorial Form within 7-14 working days.
The reviewer evaluates the manuscript according to the questionnaire for the following: the scientific relevance of the topic, the clarity in defining the aims and objectives of the study, the appropriateness of the design and statistic methodology chosen, the validity of statistical analysis, the completeness of presented patients' baseline data, a proper match of a control group, the importance of the findings, the credibility of study results, the quality and informative value of illustrative material (figures, graphs, etc.), the style of presentation, the validity of conclusions, and other characteristics. The reviewer is also expected to give the opinion as to whether the paper should be published, improved or rejected.
If the paper is considered acceptable for publication but needs some revision, the reviewers notes its weaknesses or problems along with suggestions for the improvement.
If the reviewer considers the paper inappropriate for publication, this opinion should be reasonably explained.
In situations where the Editorial Board disagrees substantially with the reviewer's opinion about the quality of the manuscript, the paper will be forwarded to another referee/reviewer, expert.
A hard copy of the reviewer's evaluation shall be signed by the reviewer and submitted to the Editorial Office for the Executive Secretary. Additionally, a soft copy may be forwarded to the Editorial Office by e-mail.
The reviewer’s comments and critical remarks, if any, shall be sent to the author for the manuscript revision and making necessary improvement. Corrections shall be are agreed upon with a reviewer. 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. The revised version shall be approved by the reviewer.
If author and reviewers meet insoluble contradictions regarding revision of the manuscript, the editor-in-chief resolves the conflict by his own authority.
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.
Upon the decision to accept the manuscript for publishing, the editorial staff notifies the authors of the scheduled date of publication.
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.
The editors may send copies of reviews to the Ministry of Education and Science of the Russian Federation upon receipt of a corresponding request.
Original reviews of submitted manuscripts remain deposited for 5 years.
Recommendations for Reviewers
1. The reviewer evaluates the article in accordance with the review form, be sure to tick off the corresponding paragraph of the Expertise Report. The reviewer should help the editors of the journal, as an expert in this field, first of all, assess the relevance (is the work interesting for most of our readers?) and the originality of the article (the results have not been published previously, and, of course, there is no plagiarism).
2. The reviewer has to comment objectively and fairly. He should also clarify any potential conflict of interest and report it to the editor.
3. The reviewer evaluates:
- structured resume;
- statistical methods;
- clarity of discussion and presentation of results;
- presentation of tables and figures;
- the validity of the conclusions.
4. The reviewer should check the literature review and make sure that the relevant sources are cited in the article.
5. In case of rejection of the article, the reviewer should indicate the main reasons, for example:
- the article does not match the profile of the magazine;
- contains plagiarism (indicate source);
- there is no necessary statistical processing;
- the generally accepted rules for the structuring of scientific articles have not been followed;
- conclusions do not match the results of the study;
- a conflict of interest has been identified;
- other reasons.
6. The reviewer should give suggestions for improvement of the article.
7. The reviewer should send timely response.
8. It is necessary to number the comments (1, 2, 3 ... etc.). This helps authors to provide well-structured, step-by-step responses to the review and facilitates further evaluation by editors and reviewers.
Indexation
Articles in «Transplantologiya. The Russian Journal of Transplantation» 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.
- Cyberleninka
- Dimensions
- DOAJ
- RNMJ.RU
- Base
- SOCIONET
- VINITI RAS
- WorldCat
- LocatorPlus
Publishing Ethics
The Publication Ethics and Publication Malpractice Statement of the journal «Transplantologiya. The Russian Journal of Transplantation» 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)
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: «Transplantologiya. The Russian Journal of Transplantation»
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 «Transplantologiya. The Russian Journal of Transplantation» 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 «Transplantologiya. The Russian Journal of Transplantation» 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 «Transplantologiya. The Russian Journal of Transplantation» 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 «Transplantologiya. The Russian Journal of Transplantation» 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 «Transplantologiya. The Russian Journal of Transplantation» 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 «Transplantologiya. The Russian Journal of Transplantation» 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 «Transplantologiya. The Russian Journal of Transplantation» 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.
The section is prepared according to the files (http://health.elsevier.ru/attachments/editor/file/ethical_code_final.pdf) of Elsevier publisher (https://www.elsevier.com/) and files (http://publicationethics.org/resources) from Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE - http://publicationethics.org/).
Founder
- N.V. Sklifosovsky Research Institute for Emergency Medicine, 3 Bolshaya Sukharevskaya Sq., Moscow 129090, Russia, URL: https://sklif.mos.ru
- IPO «Association of Transplantologists», 5 1st Koptelsky Ln., Moscow 129090 Russia, URL: http://transplantolog.org/
Author fees
Publication in «Transplantologiya. The Russian Journal of Transplantation» is free of charge for all the authors.
The journal doesn't have any Arcticle 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
«Transplantologiya. The Russian Journal of Transplantation» 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
Prior to acceptance and publication in «Transplantologiya. The Russian Journal of Transplantation», 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 «Transplantologiya. The Russian Journal of Transplantation» we suggest that the link to the article on journal's website is used when the article is shared on personal or public websites.
Glossary (by SHERPA)
Advertising policy
The Journal derives certain income from advertising or reprints, therefore the advertising policy of the Journal has been approved and its main principles are presented below:
- Editorial decisions should not be influenced by advertising revenue or reprint potential.
- Editorial and advertising functions at the journal should be independent.
- Advertisers and donors should have no control over editorial material under any circumstances.
- Reprinted articles must be published as they originally appeared in the journal (including subsequent corrections); that is, there is no alteration or revision of articles for a supplement or reprint other than corrections.
- The content of special supplementary issues (if any) should be determined only by the usual editorial process and not be influenced in any way by the funding source or advertisers.
- Advertisements or endorsements of a product or company should not exceed 40% of the total content of the journal.
- Journals should have a formal advertising policy and this should be made available to all constituents of the journal.
- Briefly, journals should require all advertisements to clearly identify the advertiser and the product or service being offered. In the case of drug advertisements, the full generic name of each active ingredient should appear.
- Commercial advertisements should not be placed adjacent to any editorial matter that discusses the product being advertised, nor adjacent to any article reporting research on the advertised product, nor should they refer to an article in the same issue in which they appear.
- Ads should have a different appearance from editorial material so there is no confusion between the two.
- Advertisements may not be deceptive or misleading. Exaggerated or extravagantly worded copy should not be allowed. Advertisements should not be accepted if they appear to be indecent or offensive or contain negative content of a religious and/or racial character.
- Products being advertised should be germane to the practice of medicine, medical education, or health care delivery.
- Journals must have the right to refuse any advertisement for any reason.
- The decision as to acceptance should be made in consultation with the journal's editor and editorial content team.
The above text is based on Recommendations on Publication Ethics Policies for Medical Journals WAME.
Article Retraction
According to the rules of the Council on Ethics of Scientific Publications of Association of Science Editors and Publishers, the grounds for article retraction are:
- detection of plagiarism in the article;
- detection of falsifications (for example, manipulation of experimental data);
- detection of serious errors that cast doubt on scientific value of the article;
- incorrect list of authors;
- duplication of the article in several journals;
- republishing the article without the author’s consent;
- concealment of conflict of interest and other violations of publication ethics;
- the fact that the article hasn’t been peer reviewed.
After the decision to retract the article is made, the chief editor informs its authors, indicating the reason and date of retraction. The article remains on the journal’s site as part of the corresponding journal issue, but is marked “Retracted” with the retraction date (the mark is placed on top of the text of the article and in the table of contents); in addition, a message about retraction is placed in the news section of the site, and the chief editor sends information about the article retraction to all online libraries and databases in which the journal is indexed.
Principles on informed consent
The journal "Transplantologiya. The Russian Journal of Transplantation" 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.
28. For a potential research subject who is incapable of giving informed consent, the physician must seek informed consent from his 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 minimal risk and burden.
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 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.
Animal Rights Policy
When conducting an experimental study on animals, the authors must indicate compliance with institutional and national standards for the use of laboratory animals (CONSENSUS AUTHOR GUIDELINES FOR ANIMAL USE: http://www.veteditors.org/consensus-author-guidelines-on-animal-ethics-and-welfare-for-editors)
