■ Provisions on review of scientific articles

All scientific articles passed to the editorial office of the magazine “International magazine of pediatrics, obstetrics and gynecology” are subject to obligatory review.
The article is accepted for the review only in condition when it is made according to the requirements which are published in the magazine and also in site http://ijpog.org
The article is registered by the responsible secretary in the book for article registration with mentioning of date of acceptance, title, name and surname of the author(s), author’s place of work and after that the article receives its registry number.
The chief and scientific editors of the magazine determine a scientific value of the typescript and appoint reviewers.
The article review is made by the members of editorial council.
The typescripts are sent to the reviewers together with the official letter on behalf of the chief editor and the receiver and the precise date of review sending are obligatory mentioned. Article sent for review is put “on control” in the editorial office. The responsible secretary reminds the reviewer 4-5 days before the supposed date of review receiving.
The term of review is 2 weeks. Depending on the situation and at the reviewer’s request it can be prolonged.
Each scientific article is reviewed by two readers of the respective scientific profile, having scientific degree of a Dr. or PhD.
With the aim to get maximally full and objective comment all articles go through double anonymous review, i.e. the author doesn’t know the reader and the reader doesn’t know the author.
In the course of the review the reader assesses in points the level of reflection of the following questions in the article:
1. The work is original
2. The research comes to a new level and is based on the prior research
3. The work is up-to-date
4. The aims and tasks of the work are clear and definite
5. The research method corresponds to the set tasks
6. The materials and methods are described rather detailed
7. The provided results correspond to the aims of the research
8. The results are received by the adequate methods
9. The results are given vividly (including tables, pictures, etc.)
10. The results have significant scientific meaning
11. The assessment of the received data and possible mistakes has been given
12. The statistic analysis has been held adequately
13. There is a comparison of own data with the date from the literature
14. The conclusion is based on the received data and is clearly formed
15. There are references to all meaningful publications on the topic of the work
16. The work has significant practical meaning
17. The paper adequately depicts the main provisions of the work
18. The work done responds to ethic norms
19. The article is written literate in good language

On the base of points the reviewer makes his conclusion:
- To recommend for publishing
- To recommend for publishing after follow-on revision with account of all remarks
- To pass the article for additional review to another specialist
- To reject publication.

If the reader recommends the article for publishing after the follow-on with account of remarks, the review by the other specialist or does not recommend the article for publishing – the reasons of such decision shall be stated in the review.
If there are recommendations on changes and follow-on of the article in the review, the responsible secretary of the magazine editorial office sends the author the text of review with remarks. The improved by the author article is repeatedly sent for review.
The article which has been declined from publishing by the readers is not accepted for repetitive review. The notice on the negative review is sent to the author by e-mail.
In case of insoluble contradictions between the author and the reviewers respective the article, the final decision is made by the chief editor.
After the editorial council receives the review it makes the final decision on the base of the points of the review and article correspondence to the thematic of the magazine. In conflict situation the final decision is made by the chief editor.
After the decision to accept the article has been made the responsible secretary of the editorial office informs the author about it and states the terms of publishing.
The originals of the reviews are stored in the editorial office of the magazine during three years.
The order of attraction internal reviewers.
The attraction of internal reviewers is possible in case:
- The member of editorial board who supervises definite direction, scientific discipline is absent;
- The member of editorial board has no ability to prepare the review;
- The editorial board does not agree with the opinion expressed by the member of the board in review:
- There is an article by the member of the editorial board.
The decision on appealing with a request to a scientist who has scientific works on thematic stated in the article is approved on the meeting of the editorial board. On behalf of the editorial committee a letter is sent to such a scientist with a request of review. The article and recommended form of review are enclosed to the letter.
Materials for sections “Anniversary”, “Necrologues” and also informational messages and summaries are not subject to review (only to scientific editing).


10, Tolstogo str., 01604 Kiev, Ukraine

Tel.:+38(044) 2345375

Fax: +38(044) 2355345

editor@ijpog.org ijpog.editor@gmail.com ijpog.editor@ukr.net


Index for individual subscribers74391

Index for organizations74397