Preview

User

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

Extreme Medicine

Advanced search

Editorial Policies

Aim and Scope

The purpose of the journal is to cover the most important modern issues in the field of preventive and clinical medicine, medical and biological sciences.

Objectives:

  • dissemination of up-to-date information on the latest scientific developments and achievements in the fields of occupational medicine, hygiene, pathological physiology of toxicology, rehabilitation and sports medicine and other scientific areas;
  • expansion of the audience of authors and readers of the journal by attracting both domestic and foreign scientists and specialists.

The journal is intended for practical healthcare professionals, scientific and scientific-pedagogical workers, applicants for the title of a scientific degree.

Applicants can submit manuscripts in accordance with scientific specialties, according to the List of leading peer-reviewed scientific journals and publications of the Higher Attestation Commission of the Ministry of Education and Science of the Russian Federation (HAC RF), in which the main scientific results of dissertations for the degree of Doctor and Candidate of Medical Sciences should be published, upon compliance of the publication with the established Requirements:

  • 3.1.7. Dentistry (medical sciences),
  • 3.1.9. Surgery (medical sciences),
  • 3.1.33. Rehabilitation medicine, sports medicine, physical therapy, balneology and physiotherapy (medical sciences),
  • 3.2.1 Hygiene (medical sciences),
  • 3.2.4. Occupational Medicine (medical sciences),
  • 3.3.3. Pathological Physiology (biological sciences),
  • 3.3.3. Pathological Physiology (medical sciences),
  • 3.3.4. Toxicology (medical sciences),
  • 3.3.6. Pharmacology, clinical pharmacology (biological sciences),
  • 3.3.7. Aviation, Space and Marytime medicine (biological sciences),
  • 3.3.7. Aviation, Space and Marytime medicine (medical sciences),
  • 3.3.8. Clinical laboratory diagnostics (biological sciences),
  • 3.3.8. Clinical laboratory diagnostics (medical sciences)

 

Section Policies

MEDICAL RADIOBIOLOGY
Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed
RADIOBIOLOGY
Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed
VIROLOGY
Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed
SPACE MEDICINE
Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed
MARINE MEDICINE
Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed
SPORTS MEDICINE
Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed
TOXICOLOGY
Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed
CLINICAL MEDICINE
Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed
CLINICAL PHARMACOLOGY
Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed
EPIDEMIOLOGY, MOLECULAR EPIDEMIOLOGY
Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed
EMERGENCIES SAFETY
Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed
IMMUNOLOGY
Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed
MICROBIOLOGY
Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed
PREVENTIVE MEDICINE
Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed
НEMATOLOGY
Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed
MOLECULAR EPIDEMIOLOGY
Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed
ОNCOLOGY
Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed
CLINICAL LABORATORY DIAGNOSTICS
Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed
NEUROLOGY & PSYCHIATRY
Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed
SURGERY
Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed
REGENERATIVE MEDICINE
Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed
AVIATION, SPACE & MARYTIME MEDICINE
Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed
PULMONOLOGY
Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed
NEUROBIOLOGY
Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed
PUBLIC HEALTH
Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed
AEROSPACE & MARITIME MEDICINE
Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed
PUBLIC HEALTH
Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed
GENETICS
Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed
 

Publication Frequency

Journal publication schedule

Issue number

Publication month

Online publication date* 

Volume 27, No. 1

March

31 March 

Volume 27, No. 2

June

30 June

Volume 27, No. 3

September

30 September

Volume 27, No. 4

December

15 December

 

Open Access Policy

All the articles published by the Extreme Medicine are licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International licence (CC BY 4.0).

The journal provides immediate open access to its content based on the following principle: free open access to research results contributes to the global exchange of knowledge.

The journal articles are made available in an open access manner on the Internet, allowing all users to read, download, copy, distribute, print, search, or link to the full text of these articles, scan them for indexing, transmit them as data for software, or use them for any other lawful purpose without financial, legal, or technical barriers other than those inherent in gaining access to the Internet itself.

N.B.! Some articles (e.g. Reviews) may contain figures, tables or text taken from other publications, for which Extreme Medicine does not hold the copyright or the right to re-license the published material. Please note that you should inquire with the original copyright holder (usually the original publisher or authors), whether or not this material can be re-used.

 

Peer-Review

Manuscript review

All manuscripts are subjected to peer-review and scientific editing. 

Upon receipt of the manuscript, the editors check it for compliance with the requirements specified in the Author Guidelines (including Antiplagiarism). Manuscripts that are not compliant with the Author Guidelines are returned to authors to complete the requirements instead of going through the review process. If the repetitive submission does not meet all the requirements, it will be rejected without consideration. Manuscript may be rejected due to inconsistency with the goals and topics of the journal or lack of originality. The decision to reject the manuscript is made by the editor-in-chief of the journal. The manuscript accepted for consideration will be sent to reviewers.

Procedure for peer reviewing the manuscripts submitted for publication in the journal

The journal provides peer reviewing of all the submitted materials that are within the remit of the journal for expert evaluation.

When working with manuscripts, communicating with reviewers, and managing the peer-review process at Extreme Medicine, the editorial staff follow the Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), World Association of Medical Editors (WAME), and International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE).

A double-blind peer review method is mandatory for processing of all scientific manuscripts submitted to the editorial stuff of Extreme Medicine. This implies that neither the reviewer is aware of the authorship of the manuscript, nor the author maintains any contact with the reviewer, and an editor of the journal mediates all communication between them. The manuscripts are sent to two reviewers for evaluation.

1. Members of the editorial board and leading Russian and international experts, working in the fields corresponding to the topic of the manuscript and having articles on this topic published within the last three years, invited as independent readers, perform peer reviews. Editor-in-chief, deputy editor-in-chief or science editor, executive editor chooses readers for peer review. We aim to limit the review process up to ten working days, though in some cases the schedule may be adjusted at the reviewer’s request. Peer review is done on a voluntary basis.

2. Having expressed consent to the request of the editors to review the article, the reviewer receives the manuscript for evaluation and shall then act in accordance with the recommendations below, Elsevier’s recommendations, and publication ethics of Extreme Medicine.

3. Privacy policy. At Extreme Medicine, the editors keep the reviewers’ and the authors’ personal data confidential. Peer review is carried out confidentially. Any manuscript received for review should be treated as a confidential document. Reviewers are notified that the manuscripts they receive are the property of the authors. Unpublished data obtained from the submitted manuscripts shall not be used in personal research without a written permission from the author.

4. Review data. The editors submit texts of reviews and information about the reviewers to the Scientific Electronic Library (eLIBRARY.RU), which publishes these reviews and information on access-controlled pages for library users. The results of reviews are stored on the personal profiles of the reviewers and considered when assessing their performance as researchers. Quantitative data on reviewing are publicly available for registered users of eLIBRARY.RU.

5. Review form, content and structure. The editors of Extreme Medicine recommend using the Standard Review Form. The review should objectively evaluate the article and contain an analysis of its scientific and methodological advantages and disadvantages.

Analyzing the article the reviewer should pay attention to the following points:       

  • Scientific novelty (whether the manuscript under review presents new data or a new analysis of previously published data and whether the results obtained are of any interest or not);
  • Title (whether the title of the article corresponds to its content, and if necessary, propose a new edition of the title, giving reasons to your decision);
  • Abstract (whether the abstract summarizes the main points of the article, whether it is done consistently and without copying other parts of the article. The abstract should contain the most important results also numerically and indicating the statistical significance levels);
  • Keywords (whether the keywords are adequately chosen, whether the number of keywords is sufficient);
  • Introduction (whether the research problem is clearly formulated, whether its relevance is confirmed, whether the main ways of solving it and the scientific community achievements up to now are described; whether the sources cited by the authors are correctly referenced and sufficiently authoritative; whether the purpose of the study or the hypothesis of the authors are clearly stated. Make sure that this part does not describe the methodology and results of the study);
  • Materials and methods (whether the study design is clear; whether the criteria for selection of study participants (including exclusion criteria) are sufficiently described; whether the study methods, including their modifications made by the authors, were correctly selected and fully mentioned; whether the equipment is named (including the manufacturer and country of manufacture); whether all the necessary reagents and medicines, their doses and methods of administering the medication are noted, whether they are named in accordance with international classifications; whether the data were correctly statistically processed);
  • Сompliance with Ethical Standards (Does the study comply with Ethical Standards? Applicable to preclinical or clinical studies, clinical cases);
  • Research results (whether the results provide data for all study subjects mentioned in the section “Patients and Methods” (“Materials and Methods”), whether they are sufficient; whether the text of the article does not duplicate tables and figures; whether the data are given in both relative and absolute values; whether statistical parameters for the numerical data are correctly given);
  • Results discussion (whether the authors compare the results obtained with the results of other researchers and explain the differences or similarities found; whether the authors explain the mechanisms of the patterns found in the study);
  • Conclusions (whether the authors achieved the purpose of the study; whether the authors summarize the findings without copying any parts of the article; whether the authors draw conclusions about the future direction of the research or how the findings may be used in clinical practice; whether the authors formulate new hypotheses or not);
  • Literature (whether the amount of references in the article is sufficient (15-40 for original research); whether there are references to outdated or questionable sources.

6. Reviewer has an option to abnegate the assessment should any conflict of      interests arise that may affect perception or interpretation of the manuscript. Upon the scrutiny, the reviewer is expected to present the editorial board with one of the following recommendations:                

  • to accept the manuscript for publication;
  • to accept the manuscript for publication with revision in accordance with the reviewer's comments (recommendations) without repeated review;
  • to finalize the manuscript in accordance with the reviewer's comments (recommendations) and send it for re-review;
  • to refuse publishing the manuscript.

7. 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 1 months and resubmit the adapted manuscript within this period for final evaluation.

8. 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 1 months since receiving a copy of the initial review, the editorial board takes the manuscript off the register and notifies the author accordingly.

9. If author and reviewers meet insoluble contradictions regarding revision of the    manuscript, the editor-in-chief resolves the conflict by his own authority. 

10.  The decision to reject publication of a manuscript is made taking into account the recommendations of the reviewers. An article that is not recommended for publication will not be accepted for re-consideration. The final decision on publication of the manuscript is made by the Editor-in-Chief. A notice of refusal to publish is sent to the author by the executive editor by email. 

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

12. Kindly note that positive review does not guarantee the acceptance. The final decision on publication is made by the Editor-in-Chief. 

13. The Editor-in-Chief, Deputy Editors-in-Chief, the Executive Editor, Editorial Board members and Editorial Council members may publish their articles in Extreme Medicine, provided that they do not abuse their authority. According to the policy of the journal, papers written by the editor-in-chief and his deputies, members of the editorial board and editorial council, executive secretary and other persons affiliated with the journal are considered as impartially as those prepared by third-party authors. The manuscripts by the journal’s employees are assigned for double-blind peer review exclusively to external reviewers. Disagreements and conflicts are resolved exclusively by external experts. If there are conflicting views regarding a manuscript submitted by the Editor-in-Chief, the final decision on its publication will be made by the Editorial Board. 

14. The procedure of external double blind review of papers prepared by the editor-in-chief/members of the editorial board and council is able to minimize any bias in the process of making a publication decision. 

15. The Editor-in-Chief, Deputy Editors-in-Chief, and Editorial Board members should indicate their affiliation with the journal in the Disclosure section of the articles they submit to the journal. 

16. The Extreme Medicine does not exempt scientists from reviewing manuscripts, regardless of their status.

17. Editing of reviews. The reviews should be written in a friendly tone and correct Russian language. The reviewers must avoid derogatory personal comments, insults to the author, and unjustified criticisms of the study aspects, the language and style of the manuscript, etc.

The editorial staff of the journal tries to redirect the reviews to the authors in their original form. However, some reviews may need to be edited without sacrificing the meaning (for example, when the editor combines comments on the same issue from several reviewers, or if the reviewer made comments that should be kept confidential from the author).

If a review has many mistakes or an unacceptable tone, the editorial staff of the journal have the right to send it back to the reviewer for revision.

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

19. Copies of the reviews are sent to the Ministry of Science and Higher Education of the Russian Federation upon the request, as well as in the Russian Science Citation Index after the publication appears on the website.

Reviewer responsibilities

By agreeing to review a manuscript for Extreme Medicine, the expert commits to following the journal’s policies and ethical requirements for evaluating manuscripts and preparing reviews.

The reviewer should strive to ensure the high quality of the materials published in Extreme Medicine, just like the editors of the journal. Therefore, the reviewer should agree to review only if they have sufficient expertise in the subject and enough time to carry out a thorough and comprehensive review.

The reviewer is obliged to inform the editor of having a conflicting interest (personal, financial, intellectual, professional, political, or religious). When in doubt, the reviewer should discuss the situation with the editor.

The reviewer may refuse to work on the manuscript at any stage of the peer-review process. In this case, the reviewer should notify the editorial staff.

The reviewer should refrain from reviewing if:

  • They are in a superior–subordinate position or hold joint grants with the author;
  • They do not intend to review the manuscript, but want to gain sight of it;
  • They are going to publish an article on a similar topic;
  • They are reviewing an article on a similar topic.

The reviewer should inform the editor of their consent to review the manuscript, and they should complete the review within the time limits specified by the editor. If unable to review, the reviewer should recommend another expert to the editor.

The reviewer cannot use their status for personal purposes or impose references to their own work on the authors.

All materials received from the editor are strictly confidential. The reviewer should not share these materials with third parties or involve other specialists in the review of a manuscript, except if authorised by the editorial staff of Extreme Medicine.

 

Publishing Ethics

Authorship, contributions, acknowledgements

At Extreme Medicine, we adhere to the following authorship criteria (developed and described in the ICMJE guidelines):

  • Substantial contributions to the conception or design of the work; or the acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data for the work;
  • Drafting the work or reviewing it critically for important intellectual content;
  • Final approval of the version to be published;
  • Agreement to be accountable for all aspects of the work in ensuring that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work are appropriately investigated and resolved.

Apart from being accountable for the parts of the study performed on their own, an author should be able to identify which co-authors are responsible for specific other parts of the work.

In addition, the authors should have confidence in the integrity of the contributions made by their co-authors. All those designated as authors should meet all four criteria for authorship, and all who meet the four criteria should be identified as authors.

Persons who do not meet all four criteria should be mentioned in the “Acknowledgements" section.

To indicate the contribution of each author, the editorial board recommends using the Contributor Roles Taxonomy CRediT system, a high–level taxonomy that includes 14 roles of participants, which acts as a tool for recognizing and documenting various contributions of authors to the creation of a manuscript in a transparent, standardized and comprehensive way.

Responsibility

The responsibility for compliance with the standards of authorship and author's contribution rests with the authors. The authors are obliged to provide transparent and correct information about the authors of the article and the persons who have made a significant contribution to the preparation of the article. If the manuscript is submitted to Extreme Medicineby the editor-in-chief, deputy editor-in-chief, member of the editorial board or editorial board, the manuscript is reviewed only by external experts. To correctly determine the contribution to the preparation of the article, we recommend using the following resources:

Authorship declaration

The editorial staff of Extreme Medicine,expects the authors to confirm the following in their cover letter signed by all co-authors.

By signing the declaration, the authors guarantee that:

  • Each author signing the declaration meets the authorship criteria as outlined in Publication ethics;
  • All individuals who participated in the study but are not the authors are specified as contributors in the Acknowledgements section;
  • Each author’s contribution is described (this information will be published in Extreme Medicine,);
  • The organisations and individuals mentioned in the Acknowledgements section have consented to their contribution to the manuscript being acknowledged.

Upon receipt of a manuscript, the editorial staff will verify that the authorship information and all the required documents are in place. In the absence of the authorship declaration or signatures from all the authors, the manuscript will not be accepted for consideration.

Disputes

In case of authorship dispute, the work on the article will be terminated regardless of the stage of its submission, reviewing, editing, or preparation for printing.

All the co-authors will be informed about the authorship dispute via e-mail.

The editors of the journal are entitled to set a precise deadline for the authors to provide clarification on the issues specified by the editors. Upon expiry of this period, the publication process is discontinued for this manuscript with an appropriate explanation. If an article has been published as an Online-First version, the clarification on withdrawal of the article from publication will be placed in the public domain.

In the case of a dispute regarding a published article, the editors of the journal will publish a correction, refutation, or retraction notice, explaining the reasons for correction, refutation, or retraction, respectively.

If it is necessary to add or remove a co-author before or after publication, the editors act in accordance with the COPE guidelines:

To prevent authorship problems, the editors use COPE flowcharts to identify the following warning signs:

  • Industry funded research with no authors from the sponsor company, as these may require the editors to take a closer look at the authors’ contributions and, if necessary, to request explanations from the corresponding author;
  • Co-authors list known to be from unrelated research areas, as this may indicate guest authorship;
  • Unspecified roles in the Acknowledgements section;
  • Questionable roles of contributors (for example, if no one appeared to draft the manuscript or to analyse the data);
  • Authorship changes during pre-publication stage without notifying the editorial staff;
  • Corresponding authors unable to respond to reviewers’ comments.

The Editorial staff of Extreme Medicine expects that organizations affiliated with the author will be ready to participate in the investigation of authorship disputes.

Complaints and appeals

At Extreme Medicine, the editorial staff carefully considers complaints about the behaviour of editors and peer reviewers, which may relate to issues such as a breach of confidentiality, an undisclosed conflict of interest, or a misuse of confidential information obtained during the peer-review process. The authors may also disagree with decisions regarding expressions of doubt on certain articles and complain about non-compliance with the editorial policies.

Complaints should be emailed to extrememedicine@cspfmba.ru for consideration according to the standard procedure. Normally, complaint handling takes no more than 7 days. The editorial staff will inform the complainant of the decision, as well as of the corrective actions initiated and the deadlines for their implementation.

The editorial staff adhere to the COPE Guidelines for handling complaints in each of the following cases:

If the authors do not agree with the decision of the Editorial Board, they may file a written reasoned complaint (once per manuscript). The editorial staff is obliged to consider the complaint within 4 weeks and make a final decision, which is not a subject to review. 

Handling confidential data

The right to privacy of individuals or organisations involved in research is of paramount importance; such research should not be conducted without informed consent. The authors must take all necessary precautions to protect information about study participants. If necessary, the authors must take measures to minimise any potential physical and psychological harm to research participants.

Responsibilities of the management team of the journal, including the Editorial Board/Council, the editors, the publisher, and the founder

Editorial Board recruitment

When forming the Editorial Board/Council, the editorial board of the journal Extreme Medicine is guided by the COPE principles.

Potential members of the Editorial Board/Council can be recommended to the Editor-in-Chief by real members of the Editorial Board/Council, reviewers and authors. A candidate for the Editorial Board/Council shall send an application to the Editor-in-Chief, who makes the final decision on including the candidate in the Editorial Board/Council.

All potential members of the Editorial Board/Council must agree to the following conditions:

  • An editor who holds the same position in more than one other journal cannot be a member of the Editorial Board/Council of Extreme Medicine;
  • An editor who is simultaneously invited to work with a special issue for another journal cannot be a member of the Editorial Board/Council of Extreme Medicine;
  • An editor who is also the Editor-in-Chief of another journal cannot be a member of the Editorial Board/Council of Extreme Medicine;
  • An editor who is simultaneously responsible for making final decisions on the publication of manuscripts in another journal cannot be a member of the Editorial Board/Council of Extreme Medicine;
  • All potential members of the Editorial Board/Council  should be ready to provide the editorial board of Extreme Medicine with information about all potential and real conflicts of interest (for example, about any activities related to the publication of scientific journals and books, membership in Editorial Board/Council of other journals, as well as any conflicts of interest that may arise after their appointments).

Potential responsibilities of Editorial Board/ Council members

  • Publication of 1 article per year to support the journal;
  • Reviewing incoming manuscripts according to their profile and in the absence of external reviewers. Each member of the Editorial Board/Council receives no more than 2 manuscripts per year for review. The review should be conducted in accordance with the approved Review Policy of  Extreme Medicine.
  • Selection of reviewers for incoming articles at the request of the executive editor, control of the review process of incoming articles.
  • Making decisions about the possibility of publishing an article after all rounds of peer review. Decisions are passed to the Editor-in-Chief, who makes the final decision on the possibility of publication.
  • Inviting authors and reviewers to cooperate with the journal.

A member may be excluded from the Editorial Board/Council for the following reasons:

  • violations of the publication ethics, such as concealing a conflict of interest, withholding information, and using the membership for personal purposes;
  • failure to fulfil the assigned duties within a year without a valid reason and without agreement with the Editor-in-Chief;
  • voluntary resignation.

Privileges of a member of the Editorial Board/Council

  • Articles by members of the Editorial Board/Council of Extreme Medicine are considered as a priority;
  • Members of the
  • Editorial Board/Council of Extreme Medicine are exempt from payment for editorial services;
  • A member of the Editorial Board/Council can participate free of charge in events organized by Extreme Medicine and the founding organization;
  • A member of the Editorial Board/Council may act as a guest editor for a special issue of Extreme Medicine;
  • Information about a member of the Editorial Board/Council  is posted on the website of Extreme Medicine with the necessary links to profiles in databases, affiliations and other necessary data.

The possibility of participation of potential candidates for the role of a member of the Editorial Board/Council  is considered at regular meetings of the Editorial Board/Council. The final decision on the inclusion of a potential candidate in the Editorial Board/Council is made by the Editor-in-Chief.

Editor's responsibility

The Editor of Extreme Medicine is personally and independently responsible for making a decision on the publication of the article. The final decision on publication is made by the Editor-in-Chief of the journal.

The Editor of Extreme Medicineis guided by the journal's policy when reviewing an article and deciding on its publication.

The Editor may discuss the article and the reviewer's comments with other Editors and Reviewers, provided that these discussions are justified and legitimate without using the materials discussed for personal purposes.

The Editor of Extreme Medicine is obliged to evaluate the content of the manuscript regardless of race, gender, sexual orientation, religious views, origin, citizenship or political preferences of the authors.

The Editor of Extreme Medicine must ensure confidentiality and, unnecessarily, not disclose information about the manuscript to third parties (with the exception of other Editors of the journal, Reviewers, Publisher and Founder).

The Editor of Extreme Medicine is obliged to inform the Editor-in-Chief about all conflict situations, as well as about the discovery of critical errors or accusations of authors or reviewers in violation of publication ethics entering the journal, in order to carry out the necessary actions in such cases: making changes, publishing refutations, withdrawing the article, expressing doubts.

The Editor of Extreme Medicine participates in the investigation of any ethical violations related to the manuscripts under consideration and published articles, and makes every effort to resolve conflicts as soon as possible. If necessary, the Editor Extreme Medicine interacts with the author's organization to conduct a more in-depth investigation.

 

Publisher's responsibility (Federal State Budgetary Institution «Centre for Strategic Planning and Management of Biomedical Health Risks» of the Federal Medical and Biological Agency, Centre for Strategic Planning of the Federal Medical and Biological Agency)

The Publisher of Extreme Medicine is responsible for compliance with all modern recommendations and requirements for maintaining the integrity of scientific materials published in the journal.

The Publisher of Extreme Medicine does not interfere in editorial processes, however, if necessary and at the request of the Editors, he can participate in the investigation of violations of publication ethics, as well as send official requests on his behalf to scientific and educational organizations, as well as other publishers.

The Publisher of Extreme Medicine is obliged to implement industry standards in the work of the publishing house in order to improve the ethical component of the journal's work.

The Publisher of Extreme Medicine is obliged to provide comprehensive legal support to the Editorial staff of the journal, if necessary.

 

Ethical oversight

At Extreme Medicine, we share COPE’s view that publication ethics includes not only ensuring the integrity and reliability of published research but also ethical behaviour towards research subjects. Ethical oversight should include policies on publication on vulnerable populations, ethical conduct of research using animals or human subjects (in the corresponding cases), handling confidential data and ethical business/marketing practices.

Informed consent and consent for publication

At Extreme Medicine, an informed consent/consent for publication form signed by patients (or their legal representatives) is required for every study in which one or several persons can be identified. This requirement also applies when a report involves deceased persons. Consent is required for the publication of photographs, medical histories, or other patient data, by which an individual or a group of individuals can be identified.

The authors are required to provide the editorial staff with a statement reporting that informed consent has been obtained from the patients or their legal representatives. The published article must inform that such consent has been obtained.

The informed consent for publication should include the following:

  1. The patient should fill in their name and sign the form.
  2. If a patient is unable to do so, the relationship of the signer to the patient must be stated.
  3. If one person is signing for a family or a group of people, that person should attest that all the members of the family/group have been informed.
  4. It should be stated that the person or group of persons has no legal, mental, or physical impediment to consent to publication. If such impediments exist, they should be stated (minor age, incapacity, disability, death).
  5. The person receiving informed consent must have the authority to perform this action.
  6. Consent forms should make it clear that, even if all the rules are followed, the journal cannot guarantee confidentiality.
  7. The patient should be informed that they may revoke consent at any time before the publication of the article.
  8. The consent form should indicate how the article will be distributed (in print, online).
  9. The consent form should contain a clause on whether the patient should read and approve the final version of the manuscript.

Vulnerable populations

Vulnerable populations include (but are not limited to) pregnant women, neonates, children, foetuses, prisoners, physically handicapped, mentally challenged, economically disadvantaged, institutionalised and very sick patients, etc.

A study must be planned in vulnerable populations only if that population will benefit from this study.

One of the important points of concern in vulnerable populations is that some lack the ability to consent or understand. In that case, a legally acceptable representative should be involved in the decision. Special care should be taken in the studies involving children.

At Extreme Medicine, the Editorial Staff supports COPE’s position statement on the publication of studies involving vulnerable groups and individuals.

The authors should obtain informed consent from the study participants to publish the results and notify the editorial staff of it.

Ethics of animal use in research

When conducting experimental research in animals, the authors are obliged to include information on compliance with institutional and national standards on the use of laboratory animals.

To present more accurate and correct information about research involving animals, the editorial staff recommend following the ARRIVE guidelines . The use of these guidelines will improve the quality and reliability of published articles and allow other researchers to reproduce the results.

Ethics of research involving human subjects

At Extreme Medicine, we rely on the principles of the Declaration of Helsinki of the World Medical Association (Ethical Principles for Medical Research Involving Human Subjects) and endeavour to ensure compliance with ethical and data collection standards for research involving human subjects. Before beginning a study, researchers should familiarise themselves with the informed consent principles of the Declaration of Helsinki and carry out the study in strict accordance with those principles as set forth below (Articles 25‒32 of the Declaration of Helsinki). When presenting the results of experimental research involving humans, the authors should indicate in the corresponding section of the article whether the procedures performed met the ethical standards described in the Declaration of Helsinki. If the study did not follow the Declaration, the authors should justify the approach chosen for the study and provide evidence that the Ethics Committee of the organisation where the study took place had approved the chosen approach.

“25. Participation by individuals capable of giving informed consent as subjects in medical research must be voluntary. Although, it may be appropriate to consult family members or community leaders, no individual capable of giving informed consent may be enrolled in a research study unless he/she freely agrees.

26. In medical research involving human subjects capable of giving informed consent for the participation, each potential subject must be adequately informed of the aims, methods, sources of funding, any possible conflicts of interest, institutional affiliations of the researcher, the anticipated benefits and potential risks of the study and the discomfort it may entail, post-study provisions and any other relevant aspects of the study. The potential subject must be informed of the right to refuse to participate in the study or to withdraw consent to participate at any time without reprisal. Special attention should be given to the specific information needs of individual potential subjects as well as to the methods used to deliver the information.

After ensuring that the potential subject has understood the information, the clinician or another appropriately qualified individual must then seek the potential subject’s freely-given informed consent, preferably in writing. If the consent cannot be expressed in writing, the non-written consent must be formally documented and witnessed.

All medical subjects should be given the option of being informed about the general outcome and results of the study.

27. When seeking informed consent for participation in a research study, the physician must be particularly cautious if the potential subject is in a dependent relationship with the physician or may consent under duress. In such situations, the informed consent must be sought by an appropriately qualified individual who is completely independent of this relationship.

28. For a potential research subject who is incapable of giving informed consent, the physician must seek informed consent from the legally authorised representative. These individuals must not be included in a research study that has no likelihood of benefit for them unless it is intended to promote the health of the group represented by the potential subject, the research cannot instead be performed with persons capable of providing informed consent, and the research entails only minimal risk and minimal burden.

29. When a potential research subject who is deemed incapable of giving informed consent is able to give assent to decisions about participation in research, the physician must seek that assent in addition to the consent of the legally authorised representative. The potential subject's dissent should be respected.

30. Research involving subjects who are physically or mentally incapable of giving consent, for example, unconscious patients, may be done only if the physical or mental condition that prevents giving informed consent is a necessary characteristic of the research group. In such circumstances the physician must seek informed consent from the legally authorised representative. If no such representative is available and if the research cannot be delayed, the study may proceed without informed consent provided that the specific reasons for involving subjects with a condition that renders them unable to give informed consent have been stated in the research protocol and the study has been approved by a research ethics committee. Consent to remain in the research must be obtained as soon as possible from the subject or a legally authorised representative.

31. The physician must fully inform the patient which aspects of their care are related to the research. The refusal of a patient to participate in a study or the patient's decision to withdraw from the study must never adversely affect the patient-physician relationship.

32. For medical research using identifiable human material or data, such as research on material or data contained in biobanks or similar repositories, physicians must seek informed consent for its collection, storage and/or reuse. There may be exceptional situations where consent would be impossible or impracticable to obtain for such research. In such situations, the research may be done only after consideration and approval of a research ethics committee”.

Sex and Gender Equity in Research

According to the Sex and Gender Equity in Research (SAGER) Guidelines, the title and abstract of an article should indicate what sex(es) the study findings apply to (if the study involved subjects of only one of the sexes). The Introduction section of the article should reference publications that demonstrate sex-related differences (e.g., higher prevalence of the disease in one of the sexes) or the absence of such differences. The authors should indicate how possible differences were accounted for in the design of their study, whether the authors ensured adequate representation of male and female study participants, whether the authors used sex-related inclusion/exclusion criteria, and whether there were specific recommendations based on sex (e.g. mandatory contraception). If necessary, when describing the results of the study, the authors should provide preclinical and clinical data disaggregated by sex and discuss the respective results. The authors should discuss the extent to which the findings can be generalised to both sexes. If there was no analysis by sex, a rationale should be given in the Discussion section.

 

Founder

Federal Medical and Biological Agency (FMBA of Russia)

Responsibilities of the Founder

The Founder of Extreme Medicine adheres to the principle of editorial independence: Neither the General Director nor the employees of the Founder company do not intervene not interfere in the editorial process. 

The Founder of the journal can recommend candidates for the Editorial Board, peer reviewers, and authors, but the final decision on the possibility of working with them is made exclusively by the Editor-in-Chief.

The Founder of the journal supports the need to ensure geographic diversity among the members of the Editorial Board/Council, peer reviewers, and authors.

The Founder does not place financial and political gain above the quality of the journal.

If necessary and at the request of the editors, the Founder can contribute to investigating violations of publication ethics and send official requests to scientific and educational organisations, as well as other publishers.

The Founder undertakes to conduct an external audit of editorial and publishing policies on a regular basis, as well as to facilitate the professional retraining of editorial staff, including through paying for their participation in relevant trainings and other events.

 

Author fees

Publication in Extreme Medicine 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

This section was prepared according to the WAME recommendations

A conflict of interest exists when an individual holds contradictory or competing interests that could bias editorial decisions on a manuscript as well as the interpretation of data in it. Conflicts of interest may be potential or perceived, or they may be actual. The impartiality of opinion may be influenced by personal, political, financial, scientific, or religious considerations.

Conflicts of interest may include:

  • Financial ties. This conflict is present when a participant in the publication process has received or expects to receive money (or other financial benefits, such as patents or stocks), gifts, or services that may influence their work on a specific publication. Examples of financial ties include but are not limited to payment for research, fees for advice, and honoraria for public speaking.
  • Personal relationships. This conflict arises from personal relationships with family members, friends, competitors, and former colleagues.
  • Political or religious beliefs. Commitment to a particular religion or political party may pose a conflict of interest for a publication on religious or political issues.
  • Institutional affiliations. This conflict of interest arises when a participant in the publication process is directly affiliated with an institution wishing to publish (or to prevent the publication of) a material on a particular topic.

At Extreme Medicine, the editors may ask the authors additional questions or request lacking information (if necessary).

Conflicts of interest may involve the authors, peer reviewers, and editors. The following policy statements are based on the ICMJE recommendations.

Responsibility of the authors to disclose conflicts of interest

The authors submitting a manuscript of any type or format are responsible for disclosing all relationships and activities that might bias or be seen to bias their work. 

The author is obliged to disclose conflicts of interest in the relevant section of the article, based on the completed ICMJE form.

If there are no conflicts of interest, the authors should also report this. For example: “The authors declare no conflicts of interest.”

Responsibility of the reviewers to disclose conflicts of interest

The peer reviewers must inform the editors of any conflict of interest that may influence their assessment of a particular manuscript. If there are grounds for bias, the reviewers should recuse themselves from reviewing.

Responsibility of the editors to disclose conflicts of interest

The editors involved in making final editorial decisions should refrain from making decisions on a manuscript if they have a conflict of interest or if their actions may give rise to potential conflicts of interest in relation to this manuscript. Other editorial staff involved in making editorial decisions should inform the editors of their current interest, and if there is a conflict of interest, the editorial staff should recuse themselves from making editorial decisions on the manuscript (as they can influence editorial decisions).

The editorial staff should not use the information obtained during the work on manuscripts for personal purposes.

The Editor-in-Chief, Deputy Editors-in-Chief, and Editorial Board members should indicate their affiliation with the journal in their submissions to Extreme Medicine.

If an undisclosed conflict of interest is discovered in an unpublished manuscript, the editorial staff of Extreme Medicine will follow the applicable COPE recommendations.

If an undisclosed conflict of interest becomes clear after publication, the editorial staff of the journal will follow the applicable COPE recommendations.

 

Plagiarism detection

Extreme Medicine use native russian-language plagiarism detection software Antiplagiat to screen the submissions. If plagiarism is identified, the COPE guidelines on plagiarism will be followed.

 

Post-publication Discussions and Corrections

In some cases, it may be necessary to change a published article. At Extreme Medicine, the editors support the practice of making necessary amendments to published materials and follow the COPE guidelines.

All the post-publication changes will be followed by a notification, which will always include a reference and link to the original version of the article, so that readers can be aware of any changes.

At Extreme Medicine, the editors use Expressions of Concern, Corrections, and Retractions. These practices aim to ensure the integrity of published research.

All the expression-of-concern, correction, and retraction notices are made publicly available.

 

What should the authors do if they find an error in their article?

The authors may discover a technical or fundamental error after their article has been published. In this case, they should inform the editorial staff of the journal of this error as soon as possible, especially if it may affect the interpretation of the study results or cast doubt on the validity of published information. The corresponding author is responsible for reaching an agreement within the author team on further communication with the editorial staff.

The authors who believe that a published article needs to be amended, should contact the journal by e-mail at extrememedicine@cspfmba.ru. 

 

Changes to a published article

Corrections

Corrections are made to an article when it is necessary to add missing information or correct an error, and the changes do not affect the scholarly integrity or the original findings.

Examples of possible corrections include amending a figure caption, adding data on research funding, or clarifying information on conflicts of interest.

If such corrections are made, the journal publishes a special correction notice. The general procedure is as follows:

  • A correction is made to the original version of the article.
  • The Crossmark record is updated.
  • A description of the change is entered in the Abstract field of the original version of the article.
  • A correction notice is published, providing information about the original version of the article, a reference and link to the article, the authors’ names, and a summary of the corrections.

The editors do not publish individual notices when correcting spelling mistakes, typos, and other minor issues. In such cases, the website will state that corrections have been made to the article (without further detail).

Retraction

At Extreme Medicine, articles are retracted in the following cases:

  • There is clear evidence that the results are unreliable for a number of reasons, including serious errors in calculations, fabricated data, image manipulation, etc.
  • Plagiarism has been found in the article.
  • The results have already been published earlier in other journals, and the author has not justified the need for re-publication and has not informed the editors about the previous publication.
  • The article uses materials and data without permission.
  • Copyright has been violated, the list of authors includes individuals who do not fulfil the criteria for authorship, or there is another serious legal issue (e.g. breach of confidentiality).
  • The integrity of research has been breached.
  • The peer-review process has been compromised.
  • The author did not disclose a conflict of interest that, in the opinion of the editors, may have influenced the decision of the peer reviewers or editors to publish the article.

The journal adheres to the following retraction procedure:

  • The editors investigate the case and make sure that the article does need to be retracted.
  • The editors prepare a retraction notice with the note “Retraction” and the title of the article. They describe the reason for retraction, specify the retraction initiator, and provide a reference and link to the article being retracted.
  • The editors publish the retraction notice.
  • The editors replace the original version of the withdrawn article, noting the fact of its withdrawal in the pdf-file.
  • They report the retraction to databases.
  • They transfer information about the withdrawal to the database for retracted articles.

At Extreme Medicine, we work with article retractions according to the COPE guidelines.

The retraction procedure follows the guidelines of the Council of Scientific Publication Ethics of the Association of Science Editors and Publishers (ASEP).

Expressions of doubt

At Extreme Medicine, the editorial staff report an expression of doubt in the following cases:

  • Serious concerns have been raised about a published article, but these concerns have not been proven through investigation yet.
  • For some reason, the investigation will not or cannot be completed for a long time.

In this case, readers should be notified as soon as possible.

Once the investigation is completed, the article may be amended or retracted.

Removals

At Extreme Medicine, a removal takes place only in extreme cases where it is not possible to follow the correction, retraction, or expression-of-doubt procedures.

An article may be removed in the following cases:

  • Its dissemination may pose a serious risk;
  • It includes content that violates a research participant’s right to privacy;
  • It violates someone’s legal rights;
  • It is subject to removal by court order.

If an article is deleted, all materials are deleted from the journal's website, requests are sent to databases with a request to delete the full text and post a message about the deletion of the article.

 

Updates and post-publication discussions

Supplements to a published article

The authors may need to supplement their article after its publication. In this case, a supplement may be published. Supplements are subject to the same peer review requirements as the original manuscript.

When an article is supplemented, the editors update the file containing the original version of the article. They publish a notice about the supplement in the next issue of the journal, including information about the article and its authors, a summary of changes, a reference and link to the article.

Commentaries on a published article

A commentary is a short material that expresses an opinion or observation concerning a published article. A commentary is peer reviewed and sent to the authors of the article so that they can prepare their response, which will be published in the same issue of the journal as the commentary.

No more than one round of published comments and answers are allowed per article.

The final decision to publish a commentary is made by the еditor of the journal. Commentaries and responses should quote each other. The title of a commentary should start with the words “Comment to the article:” with a colon followed by the name of the first author of the original article and its full title in quotation marks. The title of a response should start with the words “Response to a comment to the article:” with a colon followed by the name of the first author of the original article and its full title in quotation marks.

 

Preprint and postprint Policy

The Editorial staff of Extreme Medicine 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 staff of Extreme Medicine 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 Extreme Medicine.

The author must notify the Editorial staff of Extreme Medicine 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 Extreme Medicine 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 "Potential risks of occupational exposure of innovative biopharmaceuticals" has been reviewed, accepted for publication, and will be published in 2024 (4) of Extreme Medicine.

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 Extreme Medicine 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.

 

Research Data Sharing and Reproducibility

This section of the policy has been developed based on the COPE recommendations for working with data and the Guidelines for Transparency and Openness Promotion (TOP) in Journal Policies and Practices.

The authors are encouraged to make research data and protocols supporting their publications publicly available, but they are not obliged to do so. The authors’ consent to grant open access to the research data will not impact the editorial decision on publishing their manuscript.

Definition of research data

Research data include any factual materials which were used in the research, recorded on any media, in a digital or non-digital form. These include tabular data, codes, images, audio- and video files, documents, maps, raw and/or processed data. This policy applies to the research data that may be required to verify study results reported in articles published in Extreme Medicine. Research data include information obtained directly by the authors (“primary data”) and data from other sources analysed by the authors in their study (“secondary data”).

Definition of exceptions

This policy does not apply to research data that are not required to verify the validity of the research results reported in published articles.

Information on confidential data may be shared via publishing in research data repositories with limited access or pre-anonymisation. The authors can also grant open access only to the research metadata and/or instructions for other researchers on requesting access to the data.

Data deposition

The preferred mechanism for sharing research data is the use of data repositories. Please see the lists at https://repositoryfinder.datacite.org to find research data repositories.

Data citation

At Extreme Medicine, the editorial staff encourage the provision of access to research data under the Creative Commons open-copyright licences. The editorial staff do not enforce the use of open-copyright licences when data are deposited in a third-party repository. The Publisher of the journal does not claim ownership of the research data which were provided by the author together with the article.

Questions regarding the implementation of this policy may be addressed to the Executive editor of the journal.

Study protocols and their registration

The journal Extreme Medicine welcomes the preliminary publication of research protocols and their registration in the applicable registers (for example, clinicaltrials.gov). For randomised controlled trials, the protocol must be registered before the authors submit the manuscript.

 

Revenue Sources

The publication of the journal is financed by the funds of the Founder, at the expense of the Publisher. 

 

The journal's policy on artificial intelligence (AI) using

The editors Extreme Medicine share the position of the international publishing community regarding the use of AI in the preparation of scientific articles, as set out in the documents of the World Association of Medical Editors (WAME) and the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE), Elsevier.

Generative AI is a type of artificial intelligence technology that can produce various types of content including text, imagery, audio and synthetic data. Examples include ChatGPT, NovelAI, Jasper AI, Rytr AI, DALL-E, etc.

 

For authors

The use of generative AI and AI-assisted technologies in scientific writing

This policy only refers to the writing process, and not to the use of AI tools to analyze and draw insights from data as part of the research process.

Where authors use generative AI and AI-assisted technologies in the writing process, these technologies should only be used to improve readability and language of the work. Applying the technology should be done with human oversight and control and authors should carefully review and edit the result, because AI can generate authoritative-sounding output that can be incorrect, incomplete or biased. The authors are ultimately responsible and accountable for the contents of the work.

Authors should disclose in their manuscript the use of AI and AI-assisted technologies and a statement will appear in the published work. Declaring the use of these technologies supports transparency and trust between authors, readers, reviewers, editors and contributors and facilitates compliance with the terms of use of the relevant tool or technology.

Authors should not list AI and AI-assisted technologies as an author or co-author, nor cite AI as an author. Authorship implies responsibilities and tasks that can only be attributed to and performed by humans. Each (co-) author is accountable for ensuring that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work are appropriately investigated and resolved and authorship requires the ability to approve the final version of the work and agree to its submission. Authors are also responsible for ensuring that the work is original, that the stated authors qualify for authorship, and the work does not infringe third party rights.

The use of generative AI and AI-assisted tools in figures, images and artwork

Prohibited to use of Generative AI or AI-assisted tools to create or alter images in submitted manuscripts. This may include enhancing, obscuring, moving, removing, or introducing a specific feature within an image or figure. Adjustments of brightness, contrast, or color balance are acceptable if and as long as they do not obscure or eliminate any information present in the original.

Image forensics tools or specialized software might be applied to submitted manuscripts to identify suspected image irregularities.

The only exception is if the use of AI or AI-assisted tools is part of the research design or research methods (such as in AI-assisted imaging approaches to generate or interpret the underlying research data, for example in the field of biomedical imaging). If this is done, such use must be described in a reproducible manner in the methods section. This should include an explanation of how the AI or AI-assisted tools were used in the image creation or alteration process, and the name of the model or tool, version and extension numbers, and manufacturer. Authors should adhere to the AI software’s specific usage policies and ensure correct content attribution. Where applicable, authors could be asked to provide pre-AI-adjusted versions of images and/or the composite raw images used to create the final submitted versions, for editorial assessment.

The use of generative AI or AI-assisted tools in the production of artwork such as for graphical abstracts is not permitted. The use of generative AI in the production of cover art may in some cases be allowed, if the author obtains prior permission from the journal editor and publisher, can demonstrate that all necessary rights have been cleared for the use of the relevant material, and ensures that there is correct content attribution.

 

For reviewers

The use of generative AI and AI-assisted technologies in the journal peer review process

When a researcher is invited to review another researcher’s paper, the manuscript must be treated as a confidential document. Reviewers should not upload a submitted manuscript or any part of it into a generative AI tool as this may violate the authors’ confidentiality and proprietary rights and, where the paper contains personally identifiable information, may breach data privacy rights.

This confidentiality requirement extends to the peer review report, as it may contain confidential information about the manuscript and/or the authors. For this reason, reviewers should not upload their peer review report into an AI tool, even if it is just for the purpose of improving language and readability.

Peer review is at the heart of the scientific ecosystem and the editorial staff of Extreme Medicine abides by the highest standards of integrity in this process. Reviewing a scientific manuscript implies responsibilities that can only be attributed to humans. Generative AI or AI-assisted technologies should not be used by reviewers to assist in the scientific review of a paper as the critical thinking and original assessment needed for peer review is outside of the scope of this technology and there is a risk that the technology will generate incorrect, incomplete or biased conclusions about the manuscript. The reviewer is responsible and accountable for the content of the review report.

 

For editors

The use of generative AI and AI-assisted technologies in the journal editorial process

A submitted manuscript must be treated as a confidential document. Editors should not upload a submitted manuscript or any part of it into a generative AI tool as this may violate the authors’ confidentiality and proprietary rights and, where the paper contains personally identifiable information, may breach data privacy rights.

This confidentiality requirement extends to all communication about the manuscript including any notification or decision letters as they may contain confidential information about the manuscript and/or the authors. For this reason, editors should not upload their letters into an AI tool, even if it is just for the purpose of improving language and readability.

Peer review is at the heart of the scientific ecosystem and editorial staff of the journal abides by the highest standards of integrity in this process. Managing the editorial evaluation of a scientific manuscript implies responsibilities that can only be attributed to humans. Generative AI or AI-assisted technologies should not be used by editors to assist in the evaluation or decision-making process of a manuscript as the critical thinking and original assessment needed for this work is outside of the scope of this technology and there is a risk that the technology will generate incorrect, incomplete or biased conclusions about the manuscript. The editor is responsible and accountable for the editorial process, the final decision and the communication thereof to the authors.

 

 

Advertising

Revenue generation is not a goal of the Founder and Publisher of Extreme Medicine.

Therefore, the Extreme Medicine prohibits commercial advertising and other types of revenue generation activities (for example, reprints). If this policy is changed, the Extreme Medicine plans to be guided by the Russian Federal Law On Advertising and the WAME Recommendations on Publication Ethic Policies for Medical Journals.

 

Editorial policy revision date: 22 Nov 2024

 


10 bld. 1 Pogodinskaya Str., Moscow, Russia 119121

tel.: +7 (495) 540-61-71, ext.: 4190, 4191, 4192

E-mail: Extrememedicine@cspfmba.ru

Processing of personal data
supported by NEICON (Elpub lab)