- » Aim and Scope
- » Section Policies
- » Open Access Policy
- » Archiving
- » Peer Review Process
- » Indexation
- » Publishing Ethics
- » Founder
- » Author fees
- » Disclosure and Conflict of Interest
- » Plagiarism detection
- » Preprint and postprint Policy
- » Publication Timeline
Aim and Scope
Cardiovascular diseases are the leading cause of death worldwide, including the Russian Federation. Despite enormous financial and non-financial investments, timely diagnosis, primary and secondary prevention, therapeutic and surgical treatment of cardiovascular disease remain the greatest challenges to the health care system.
The scope of the "Complex Issues of Cardiovascular Diseases” is to consolidate experimental and clinical evidences in cardiology, cardiovascular surgery and national public health delivery system and provide beneficial information to our readers and share international experience that can be extrapolated to the local healthcare facilities.
“Complex Issues of Cardiovascular Diseases” is a unique national peer-reviewed journal focused on multidisciplinary heart teams (cardiologists, cardiovascular surgeons, anesthesiologists and intensivists, clinical psychologists, rehabilitation therapists, etc.) and researchers in the field of experimental cardiology, heart valve and vessel development. The journal’s concept is to encourage an active discussion of novel insights to the complex issues of cardiovascular diseases that have been reported by national and international scientists, research groups and collaborators.
“Complex Issues of Cardiovascular Diseases” addresses the following goals: (1) to publish up-to-date knowledge of novel biological and molecular markers of cardiovascular diseases ensuring early diagnosis, the latest findings in experimental and clinical cardiology and cardiovascular surgery, new biomedical products for cardiology and cardiovascular surgery, recent evidences in primary and secondary rehabilitation, QI progress in health system organization and management in non-invasive and invasive cardiology; (2) to enhance communication between multidisciplinary healthcare professionals (cardiologists, cardiovascular surgeons, anesthesiologists, intensivists) bridging them together for future projects with biomedical researchers; (3) to translate innovative approaches and knowledge into clinical practice in order to enhance the credibility and impact of the Russian medical community and Russian scientific achievements in the global medical community.
The set scope and goals allow promoting “Complex Issues of Cardiovascular Diseases” as a unique research and educational platform bringing together various national and international research groups and collaborators with particular attention paid to the most relevant and burning issues in clinical and experimental cardiology, cardiovascular surgery and other allied disciplines.
The competent editorial board supported by International Advisory Board guarantees double-blind, fast and accurate reviewing of the manuscripts submitted for publication by the independent reviewers, as well as timely publication of all accepted manuscripts.
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 |
| 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 |
| 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 |
| 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 |
| 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 |
| Open Submissions |
Indexed |
Peer Reviewed |
| Open Submissions |
Indexed |
Peer Reviewed |
| Open Submissions |
Indexed |
Peer Reviewed |
Open Access Policy
The journal “Complex Issues of Cardiovascular Diseases” provides free access to its content to all readers over the age of sixteen, in accordance with the provisions and basic principles of information openness and practical guidelines for research and publication set by the Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ) and the Open Access Scholarly Publishers Association (OASPA), the World Association of Medical Editors (WAME), the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).
Our open access policy is in accordance with the Budapest Open Access Initiative (BOAI) definition:
“By "open access" to this [research] literature, we mean its 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. The only constraint on reproduction and distribution and the only role for copyright in this domain should be to give authors control over the integrity of their work and the right to be properly acknowledged and cited”.
Archiving
The journal’s content is archived in the eLIBRARY, CyberLeninka as well as in the Russian State Library and the National Electronic Information Consortium (NEICON) to improve the reliability and provide direct access to all publications.
Peer Review Process
Peer Review
A double-blind peer review method is mandatory for processing of all manuscripts submitted to the journal “Complex Issues of Cardiovascular Diseases”. “Complex Issues of Cardiovascular Diseases” performs a peer review of all materials, received by the Editorial Office: editorials, original articles, reviews, clinical cases, and guidelines. Comments and letters to the Editor-in-Chief are not subjected to peer review. Peer reviewing ensures maintaining high quality of the journal’s content and allows assessing the concrete contribution to the development of main research areas on diagnosis, treatment and prevention of cardiovascular diseases.
Initial assessment
Before appointing a reviewer, the Editor-in-Chief and editorial assistant confirm:
1. The compliance of the submitted manuscript to the Aims and Scope of the journal;
2. The accompanying documents and authors’ signatures (see Author Guidelines);
3. The format and structure of the submitted manuscript (see Author Guidelines);
4. The funding statement, conflict of interests, contributions of each author to the submitted manuscript (see Author Guidelines, Conflict of Interest);
5. The compliance of the submitted manuscript to ethical policy of the “Complex Issues of Cardiovascular Diseases” (Approvals obtained from Ethics Committees when publishing the findings of researches on humans or laboratory animals or written informed consent collected from patients when submitting clinical cases);
6. The uniqueness and originality of the manuscript. Incoming material is checked for plagiarism and borrowing. (see Author Guidelines).
At the stage of initial evaluation, the submitted material is reviewed by the Editor-in-Chief and editorial assistant and may be returned to the authors for revision. Articles suitable for the further review will be subjected to the evaluation by two independent reviewers. If the submitted material does not correspond to the Aims and Scope of the journal, the Editorial Board may reject the manuscript without conducting a peer review.
Reviewers Selection
All manuscripts submitted to the journal that requires the expert evaluation are subjected to a double-blind peer review. The name of the reviewer can be disclosed at the author’s request. Disclosure of a reviewer’s name does not affect the process and the principle of further work. The name of a reviewer is disclosed by the Editor-in-Chief if the reviewer declares the manuscript to be unreliable or contain falsified information.
All reviewers are acknowledged experts on the subject of the reviewed materials and have publications on the subject of peer-reviewed articles within the last 3 years. All reviews are stored in the publishing and editorial office for 5 years and may be requested by any interested author. The Editor-in-Chief selects independent reviewers from the biomedical community. After agreeing to review a manuscript, the reviewer receives materials for peer reviewing. Manuscripts for review are sent to the reviewer via the electronic manuscript submission system. The peer-reviewing should be performed in 14 days.
Each reviewer must disclose to editors any relationships or activities that could bias his or her opinion of the manuscript, and should recuse himself or herself from reviewing specific manuscripts if the potential for bias exists. Reviewers must not use knowledge of the work they’re reviewing before its publication to further their own interests. (see Conflict of Interest). In case the reviewer cannot perform the reviewing, he or she can recommend to the Editor-in-Chief other reviewers in this field of knowledge. Editor-in-Chief, Deputy Editors and Publishing Editor follow the principles and recommendations of the World Organization of Medical Editors on selecting the reviewer.
1 Reviewers’ responsibilities
1.1 Contribution to editorial decision-making
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.
1.2 Timeliness
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 and excuse himself from the review process
1.3 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.
1.4 Standard and objectivity
Reviews should be conducted objectively. Personal criticism of the author is inappropriate. Referees should express their views clearly with supporting arguments.
1.5 Acknowledgment 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.
1.6 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.
2 Authors’ responsibilities
2.1 Reporting standards
Authors reporting 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.
2.2 Data accessibility
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, if practicable, and should in any event be prepared to retain such data for a reasonable time after publication.
2.3 Originality, plagiarism, and citing the resources
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. Authors should cite publications that have been influential in determining the nature of the reported work.
2.4. Multiple, redundant or concurrent publications
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. In general, an author should not submit for consideration in another journal a previously published paper. 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.
3. Editors’ responsibilities
3.1 Publication decision
The editors of the Complex Issues of Cardiovascular Diseases are solely and independently responsible for deciding which of the articles submitted to the journal should be published. The validation of the work in question and its importance to researchers and readers must always underwrite such decisions. The editors may be guided by the policies of the journal’s editorial board and constrained by such legal requirements as shall then be in force regarding libel, copyright infringement and plagiarism. The editors may confer with other editors or reviewers (or society officers) in making this decision.
3.2 Fair play
The editors 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.
3.3 Confidentiality
The editors must not disclose any information about a submitted manuscript to anyone other than the corresponding author, reviewers, potential reviewers, other editorial advisers, and the owner, as appropriate.
3.4 Disclosure and conflicts of interest
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.
Editors should recuse themselves (i.e. should ask a co-editor, associate editor or another 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.
3.5 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.
3.6 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.
Peer review of statistics
Original research manuscripts containing statistical analysis are sent to the peer review of statistics. The requirements for the description of statistical methods are presented in the rules for authors (see Author Guidelines).
Ethics of Peer Review
The Complex Issues of Cardiovascular Diseases asks the reviewers to follow the basic principles of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE):
1) Agree to review manuscripts for which they have the subject expertise required to carry out a proper assessment and which they can assess in a timely manner;
2) Respect the confidentiality of peer review and not reveal any details of a manuscript or its review, during or after the peer-review process, beyond those that are released by the journal;
3) Not use information obtained during the peer-review process for their own or any other person’s or organization’s advantage, or to disadvantage or discredit others;
4) Declare all potentially conflicting interests, seeking advice from the journal if they are unsure whether something constitutes a relevant interest;
5) Not allow their reviews to be influenced by the origins of a manuscript, by the nationality, religious or political beliefs, gender or other characteristics of the authors, or by commercial considerations;
6) Be objective and constructive in their reviews, refraining from being hostile or inflammatory and from making libelous or derogatory personal comments,
7) Acknowledge that peer review is largely a reciprocal endeavor and undertake to carry out their fair share of reviewing and in a timely manner;
8) Provide journals with personal and professional information that is accurate and a true representation of their expertise
9) Recognize that impersonation of another individual during the review process is considered serious misconduct
Reviewer’s report and suggestions
After peer reviewing the manuscript, the reviewer gives his or her report suggesting that:
1) Manuscript may be accepted. Reviewers have no major remarks. The paper is to be handled by a proofreader. The timeline of publication is set by the Editor-in-Chief, Deputy Editors, Publishing Editor and the Editorial Board.
2) Manuscript requires revision. The paper needs minor or major revision and second time reviewing. The corresponding author receives an anonymous reviewers’ comments by email, need to revise paper and then upload revised version to the Journal's site.
3) Manuscript should be rejected. The corresponding author receives a well-argued denial.
The editorial office send copies of reviews or motivated refusals to the authors of the submitted manuscripts, and may send their copies to the Ministry of Education and Science of the Russian Federation upon the corresponding request to the editorial office.
Manuscript revision
If the review contains recommendations for correcting and finalizing the manuscript, the editorial office of the journal sends the reviews to the author for the revision. The revision of the manuscript is limited up to 2 months from the date of sending the electronic message to the corresponding author via email and the electronic system. The revised manuscript is then submitted by the corresponding author for the second-round peer-review.
In case of disagreement with the comments of the reviewer, the author can provide a well-argued answer to the editorial office of the journal. If the author and reviewers have irreconcilable differences concerning the manuscript, the editorial board may send the manuscript to the third reviewer. The decision in conflict situations is made by the Editor-in-Chief.
Refusal to correct a manuscript
If the authors decide not to revise their articles, they have to notify the editorial office in writing of their refusal from publishing the manuscript. Should the authors fail to return the revised version within 3 months after receiving the review, even in the absence of the authors’ notice of their refusal to revise the paper, the editorial office will strike it off the register. In such cases, the authors are duly notified that their manuscript will not be published owing to the expiration of the time specified for revision of the paper.
Appeal
The author has a right to lodge an appeal to the Editor-in-Chief during 30 days from the rejection of the article in case if the author doesn’t agree with the decision of the Editorial Office and finds that the article was rejected unfairly. The appeal should include all the comment made by the Editors and Reviewers. The Editor-in-Chief can change initial decision in a case that unfairness of the comments would be proved and\or the Authors would support their point of view. The Editor-in-Chief has a right to appoint the second round reviewing and chooses independent reviewers from national and international biomedical community. If the Editor-in-Chief chooses the Reviewers who are non-Russian speakers, the Editorial Office translates the manuscript free of charge once the Authors’ agreement is received. If the Reviewers recommend the manuscript for the publication and state the previous reviews as unfair, the Editor-in-Chief initializes internal inquiry in competency of the Reviewers and the Publishing Editor with their temporary suspension. The Authors will be notified by written notice about the re-registration of the article.
After the decision on the manuscript publication has been made, the Editorial Office notifies the Author and sets time limits for the publication.
Indexation
Articles in "Complex Issues of Cardiovascular Diseases" are indexed by several systems:
- Russian Scientific Citation Index (RSCI) – a database, accumulating information on papers by Russian scientists, published in native and foreign titles. The RSCI project is under development since 2005 by “Electronic Scientific Library” foundation (elibrary.ru).
- Google Scholar is a freely accessible web search engine that indexes the full text of scholarly literature across an array of publishing formats and disciplines. The Google Scholar index includes most peer-reviewed online journals of Europe and America's largest scholarly publishers, plus scholarly books and other non-peer reviewed journals.
- Base
- Cyberleninka
- Dimensions
- LocatorPlus
- NLM
- RNMJ.RU
- VINITI RAS
- WorldCat
Publishing Ethics
The Publication Ethics and Publication Malpractice Statement of the journal “Complex Issues of Cardiovascular Diseases” are based on the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) Code of Conduct guidelines, requirements for peer-reviewed medical journals, elaborated by the "Elsevier" Publishing House and Recommendations for the Conduct, Reporting, Editing, and Publication of Scholarly Work in Medical Journals developed by ICMJE.
1. General duties and responsibilities of the Editor-in-Chief, Deputy Editors and Publishing Editor of the Complex Issues of Cardiovascular Diseases
1.1. The Editor-in-Chief, Deputy Editors and Publishing Editor are accountable for everything published in the Complex Issues of Cardiovascular Diseases.
1.2. The Editor-in-Chief, Deputy Editors and Publishing Editor of the Complex Issues of Cardiovascular Diseases strive to meet the needs of readers and authors, strive to constantly improve their journal and maintain the integrity of the academic record;
1.3. The Editor-in-Chief, Deputy Editors and Publishing Editor of the Complex Issues of Cardiovascular Diseases have processes in place to assure the quality of the material they publish, champion freedom of expression and preclude business needs from compromising intellectual and ethical standards;
1.4. The Editor-in-Chief, Deputy Editors and Publishing Editor of the Complex Issues of Cardiovascular Diseases are always willing to publish corrections, clarifications, retractions and apologies when needed;
1.5. The Editor-in-Chief, Deputy Editors and Publishing Editor of the Complex Issues of Cardiovascular Diseases seek the views of authors, readers and reviewers improving their journal’s processes, encourage and are aware of research into peer review and publishing and reassessing the Complex Issues of Cardiovascular Diseases processes in the light of new findings and work to persuade NII KPSSZ to provide appropriate resources, guidance from experts and high-quality specialists;
1.6. The Editor-in-Chief, Deputy Editors and Publishing Editor of the Complex Issues of Cardiovascular Diseases use the best practices to define the role of authors and contributors as well as to determine ghost, guest or gift authorship;
1.7. The Editor-in-Chief, Deputy Editors and Publishing Editor of the Complex Issues of Cardiovascular Diseases encourage responsible behaviour and discourage misconduct and insist on recusing those members from editorial decisions who have relationships or activities that pose potential conflicts related to articles under consideration.
2. Relations with readers
2.1. Readers of the Complex Issues of Cardiovascular Diseases are informed about who has funded research or other scholarly work and whether the funders had any role in the research and its publication, provided with a transparency policy to encourage maximum disclosure about the provenance of non-research articles and informed about steps taken to ensure that submissions from members of the journal’s staff or editorial board receive an objective and unbiased evaluation;
2.2. The Editor-in-Chief, Deputy Editors and Publishing Editor of the Complex Issues of Cardiovascular Diseases ensure that all published reports and reviews of research have been reviewed by suitably qualified reviewers (including statistical review where appropriate) and ensure that non-peer-reviewed sections of their journal are clearly identified
3. Relations with authors
3.1. The decisions of the Editor-in-Chief, Deputy Editors, Publishing Editor and Editorial Board of the Complex Issues of Cardiovascular Diseases to accept or reject a paper for publication is based on the paper’s importance, originality and clarity, and the study’s validity and its relevance to the remit of the journal;
3.2. The Editor-in-Chief, Deputy Editors, Publishing Editor and Editorial Board of the Complex Issues of Cardiovascular Diseases do not reverse decisions to accept submissions unless serious problems are identified with the submission;
3.3. The Complex Issues of Cardiovascular Diseases has a declared mechanism for authors to appeal against editorial decisions;
3.4. The Editor-in-Chief, Deputy Editors, Publishing Editor and Editorial Board of the Complex Issues of Cardiovascular Diseases regularly publish guidance to authors on everything that is expected of them and regularly update it;
3.5. The Editor-in-Chief, Deputy Editors, Publishing Editor and Editorial Board of the Complex Issues of Cardiovascular Diseases provide the guidance about criteria for authorship and/or who should be listed as a contributor following the standards set by ICMJE in the Recommendations for the Conduct, Reporting, Editing, and Publication of Scholarly Work in Medical Journals.
4. Relations with reviewers
4.1. The Editor-in-Chief, Deputy Editors, Publishing Editor and Editorial Board of the Complex Issues of Cardiovascular Diseases ensure that appropriate reviewers are selected for submissions and follow the COPE flowchart in cases of suspected reviewer misconduct;
4.2. The Editor-in-Chief, Deputy Editors, Publishing Editor and Editorial Board of the Complex Issues of Cardiovascular Diseases insist on reviewers disclosing any potential competing interests before agreeing to review a submission;
4.3. The Editor-in-Chief, Deputy Editors, Publishing Editor and Editorial Board of the Complex Issues of Cardiovascular Diseases acknowledge the contribution of reviewers to the journal and encourage academic institutions to recognise peer review activities as part of the scholarly process;
4.4. The Editor-in-Chief, Deputy Editors, Publishing Editor and Editorial Board of the Complex Issues of Cardiovascular Diseases are guided by the COPE flowcharts in cases of suspected misconduct, monitor the performance of peer reviewers and take steps to ensure this is of high standard;
4.5. The Editor-in-Chief, Deputy Editors, Publishing Editor and Editorial Board of the Complex Issues of Cardiovascular Diseases ensure that the reviewer database reflects the community for the journal, add new reviewers and update it regularly.
5. Relations with editorial board members
5.1. The Editor-in-Chief, Deputy Editors and Publishing Editor of the Complex Issues of Cardiovascular Diseases provide new editorial board members with guidelines on everything that is expected of them and should keep existing members updated on new policies and developments;
5.2. The Editor-in-Chief, Deputy Editors and Publishing Editor of the Complex Issues of Cardiovascular Diseases have policies in place for handling submissions from editorial board members to ensure unbiased review;
5.3. The Editor-in-Chief of the Complex Issues of Cardiovascular Diseases regularly reviews the composition of the editorial board.
6. Relations with journal owners and publishers
6.1. The relationship of the Editor-in-Chief, Deputy Editors and Publishing Editor of the Complex Issues of Cardiovascular Diseases to the owner are based firmly on the principle of editorial independence;
6.2. The Editor-in-Chief, Deputy Editors and Publishing Editor of the Complex Issues of Cardiovascular Diseases make decisions on which articles to publish based on quality and suitability for the journal and without interference from the journal owner.
7. Editorial and peer review processes
7.1. The Editor-in-Chief, Deputy Editors and Publishing Editor ensure that peer review at the Complex Issues of Cardiovascular Diseases is fair, unbiased and timely;
7.2. The Editor-in-Chief, Deputy Editors and Publishing Editor of the Complex Issues of Cardiovascular Diseases ensuring that people involved with the editorial process receive adequate training and keep abreast of the latest guidelines, recommendations and evidence about peer review and journal management, are kept informed about research into peer review and technological advances and adopt peer review methods best suited for the biomedical community;
7.3. The Editor-in-Chief, Deputy Editors and Publishing Editor of the Complex Issues of Cardiovascular Diseases will refer troubling cases to COPE, especially when questions arise that are not addressed by the COPE flowcharts, or new types of publication misconduct are suspected.
8. Quality assurance
8.1. The Editor-in-Chief, Deputy Editors and Publishing Editor take all reasonable steps to ensure the quality of the published material, recognize that the Complex Issues of Cardiovascular Diseases has specific Aim and Goals and, therefore, use several systems to detect falsified data either for routine use or when suspicions are raised.
9. Protecting individual data
9.1 The Editor-in-Chief, Deputy Editors and Publishing Editor of the Complex Issues of Cardiovascular Diseases obey the Federal Law No 149-FL issued on 27.07.2006 (revised in 29.06.2018) “On Information, Information Technologies and the Protection of Information”.
10. Encouraging ethical research involving humans or animals
10.1. The Editor-in-Chief, Deputy Editors and Publishing Editor of the Complex Issues of Cardiovascular Diseases endeavour to ensure that the research under consideration was carried out according to the relevant internationally accepted guidelines and seek assurances that it has been approved by an appropriate body (e.g. research ethics committee, institutional review board);
10.2. The Editor-in-Chief, Deputy Editors and Publishing Editor of the Complex Issues of Cardiovascular Diseases may request evidence of ethical research approval and to question authors about ethical aspects if concerns are raised or clarifications are needed;
10.3. The Editor-in-Chief of the Complex Issues of Cardiovascular Diseases appoints a journal ethics advisor to advise on specific cases and regularly review journal policies.
11. Dealing with possible misconduct
11.1. The Editor-in-Chief, Deputy Editors and Publishing Editor of the Complex Issues of Cardiovascular Diseases follow the COPE flowcharts if they suspect misconduct or if an allegation of misconduct is brought to them;
11.2. The Editor-in-Chief, Deputy Editors and Publishing Editor of the Complex Issues of Cardiovascular Diseases first seek a response from those suspected of misconduct and if they are not satisfied with the response, the relevant employers, or institution, or some appropriate body will be requested to investigate.
12. Ensuring the integrity of the academic record
12.1. The Editor-in-Chief, Deputy Editors and Publishing Editor of the Complex Issues of Cardiovascular Diseases taking steps to reduce covert redundant publication, ensure that published material is securely archived and any errors, inaccurate or misleading statements can be corrected promptly and with due prominence.
13. Intellectual property
13.1. The Editor-in-Chief, Deputy Editors and Publishing Editor of the Complex Issues of Cardiovascular Diseases work to handle potential breaches of intellectual property laws and conventions, adopt systems for detecting plagiarism in submitted items and strongly support authors whose copyright has been breached or who have been the victims of plagiarism.
14. Encouraging debate
14.1. The Editor-in-Chief, Deputy Editors and Publishing Editor encourage and are willing to consider cogent criticisms of work published in the Complex Issues of Cardiovascular Diseases.
15. Complaints
15.1. The Editor-in-Chief, Deputy Editors and Publishing Editor of the Complex Issues of Cardiovascular Diseases respond promptly to complaints and ensure there is a way for dissatisfied omplainants to take complaints further as set out in the COPE flowchart on complaints.
16. Conflicts of interest
16.1. The Complex Issues of Cardiovascular Diseases has specific system for managing the Editor-in-Chief, Deputy Editors and Publishing Editor own conflicts of interest as well as those of their staff, authors, reviewers and editorial board members.
16.2. The Complex Issues of Cardiovascular Diseases has a declared process for handling submissions from the editors, employees or members of the editorial board to ensure unbiased review.
Founder
- Federal State Budgetary Scientific Institution Research Institute for Complex Issues of Cardiovascular Diseases
Author fees
Publication in the journal "Complex Issues of Cardiovascular Diseases" is free of charge for the authors. Editors don't charge the authors for preparation, placement and printing of materials.
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
The Authors should guarantee that their article is original and borrowed data are cited correctly and are provided with reference to the original source. The Authors of original articles should provide an accurate and detailed report on the conducted research as well as an objective discussion of the obtained results. Deliberate submission of inaccurate or misleading data is considered as unethical behaviour and is unacceptable.
Preprint and postprint Policy
Prior to acceptance and publication in "Complex Issues of Cardiovascular Diseases", 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 "Complex Issues of Cardiovascular Diseases" 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)
