- » Aim and Scope
- » Section Policies
- » Publication Frequency
- » Open Access Policy
- » Archiving
- » Peer-Review
- » Publishing Ethics
- » Founder
- » Author fees
- » Disclosure and Conflict of Interest
- » Plagiarism detection
- » Preprint and postprint Policy
Aim and Scope
Mission of the journal:
The journal "Virtual Technologies in Medicine" is an open platform for discussing advanced medical simulation and virtual methods, supporting the implementation of innovative technologies in medical education, clinical practice and healthcare organization. The journal aims to improve the level of education of medical specialists and the quality of medical care through the publication of scientific data and methods for the use of virtual and simulation technologies.
Target audience:
The journal is aimed at teachers of higher and secondary vocational education in the field of training personnel for healthcare, educational specialists and administrators of simulation and educational centers, researchers and clinicians who use the latest developments in the field of virtual and simulation technologies in their institutions.
Competitive advantages:
The journal stands out due to the combination of fundamental research and applied materials, covering both classical and innovative approaches. Published articles cover the experience and innovations in the field of medical simulation and virtual technologies, complementing world experience with local expertise and observations. This makes the publication attractive to an international audience, as it offers unique practical solutions adapted to the educational and clinical needs of different countries.
Journal objectives:
- Education and training: Publication of methods, models and technologies for secondary vocational, higher and continuous medical education and professional development, aimed at improving the level of knowledge and skills of specialists in the field of healthcare.
- Scientific research: Presentation of fundamental and applied research related to the use of simulation and virtual technologies in medical education and practice, including testing of new methods, evaluation of their effectiveness and implementation in education and clinical processes.
- Clinical and didactic observations: Description of clinical cases and methods that improve the training of specialists, as well as discussion of the difficulties that arise during their implementation.
- Management of simulation centers: Articles on the effective management and accreditation of simulation centers, their role in the educational system and ways to optimize their work.
- Support for international knowledge exchange: Focus on internationalization and attracting specialists from different countries, which ensures the exchange of knowledge and practical experience, as well as the creation of a global community of professionals in the field of medical simulation.
Authors: The authors are teachers, researchers, doctors and simulation education specialists from Russia, near and far abroad countries, who have made a practical or theoretical contribution to the development of simulation and virtual methods in medicine. The journal publishes works not only by members of the Russian Society for Simulation Education in Medicine (ROSOMED), but also experts from other professional public organizations: BOSOM (Belarusian Society for Simulation in Medicine), authors from Kazakhstan, Armenia, Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzstan, articles by authors from the German Simulation Society DGSim, the European Simulation Society SESAM, the International Simulation Society SSH. The journal invites both recognized experts and young researchers to publish, which allows expanding the range of published materials and attracting the international community.
This approach to objectives and audience allows the journal "Virtual Technologies in Medicine" to serve as a bridge between scientific research and clinical practice, creating the necessary information base for the implementation of the latest achievements in medicine.
Section Policies
Open Submissions
Peer ReviewedPublication Frequency
4 issues per year
Open Access Policy
"Virtual Technologies in Medicine" is an open access journal. All articles are made freely available to readers immediatly upon publication.
Our open access policy is in accordance with the Budapest Open Access Initiative (BOAI) definition - it means that articles have free availability on the public internet, permitting any users to read, download, copy, distribute, print, search, or link to the full texts of these articles, crawl them for indexing, pass them as data to software, or use them for any other lawful purpose, without financial, legal, or technical barriers other than those inseparable from gaining access to the internet itself.
For more information please read BOAI statement.
Archiving
- Russian State Library (RSL)
- National Electronic-Information Consortium (NEICON)
Peer-Review
Updated: 10.12.2025
The policy was adopted by the Editor-in-Chief: Valeriy Alekseevich Kubyshkin.
The editorial board of the journal "Virtual Technologies in Medicine" follows COPE recommendations when working with manuscripts, reviewers, and organizing the peer review process.
Type of Peer Review
All manuscripts submitted to the journal "Virtual Technologies in Medicine" undergo mandatory double-blind peer review, meaning neither authors nor reviewers know each other's names or affiliations, with all correspondence conducted through the journal editor. Each manuscript is sent to at least two experts.
Review Timeline
The peer review process in the journal takes an average of 1 to 6 months, including initial manuscript consideration, reviewer selection, review preparation, author revisions, re-review, and additional experts if needed.
Review Process
The editor selects reviewers for the journal "VIRTUAL TECHNOLOGIES IN MEDICINE." Each article is sent to at least two experts, with a third involved if opinions differ.
Possible editor decisions include: accept for publication: in this case, the manuscript will be included in one of the regular issues of the journal and will be submitted to the editor for further processing. The author will be notified of the publication deadline.
Accept after minor revisions: in this case, the author will be asked to make the changes specified by the reviewer within a week. If the shortcomings are eliminated or if the author reasonably refuses to make changes, the manuscript will be accepted for publication.
Accept for publication after correcting the reviewer's comments and re-reviewing. In this case, the author will be asked to make the changes specified by the reviewer within two weeks. The manuscript will be sent for re-review. Within 30 days, the author will receive a final decision on the manuscript's fate.
Reject. In this case, the author will be sent a reasoned refusal to publish the manuscript. A refusal to publish does not prohibit authors from continuing to submit manuscripts to the journal "VIRTUAL TECHNOLOGIES IN MEDICINE", but if the publication is denied due to serious violations by the author, the editor-in-chief may decide to add the author to a blacklist. In this case, other articles by the author will not be considered.
The editorial board of the journal "VIRTUAL TECHNOLOGIES IN MEDICINE" provides for three rounds of peer review, which means that after the first decision to revise the article, the author has two attempts to make changes based on the reviewer's recommendations or to provide a motivated refusal. If, after the third round of peer review, the expert sends additional comments, the editor of the journal will suggest that the author consider publishing the article in another journal or resubmitting it with the necessary changes after six months. If the author does not plan to revise the article, they should notify the editorial board of the journal. The work on the article will be discontinued. If the author has a conflict of interest with an expert who could potentially review the manuscript, they should notify the journal editor. The editors of VIRTUAL TECHNOLOGIES IN MEDICINE will select another reviewer if necessary. During the review process, a conflict may arise between the author and the reviewer. In such cases, the editor will resolve the issue.
The journal "VIRTUAL TECHNOLOGIES IN MEDICINE" may publish articles by the editor-in-chief, his deputy, the executive secretary, and members of the editorial board, but there should be no abuse of official position. Manuscripts by the journal's staff are sent for double-blind review only to external experts. Only external experts are involved in resolving conflicts and disputes. In the event of a conflict regarding the fate of the editor-in-chief's manuscript, the final decision on the possibility of publishing the article is made by the members of the editorial board. When publishing articles by members of the editorial board/council, the editor-in-chief, and his deputy, information about the authors' affiliation with the journal is included in the "Conflict of Interest" section. The journal "VIRTUAL TECHNOLOGIES IN MEDICINE" does not exempt scientists from reviewing their manuscripts, regardless of their status. Copies of the reviews are stored in the editorial office of the journal "VIRTUAL TECHNOLOGIES IN MEDICINE" for at least 5 years.
Reviewer Composition
All incoming manuscripts are reviewed by external experts who have experience in the relevant subject area and have published on the topic of the manuscript within the last 3 years. In cases where the topic of the article is very narrow and/or the author declares a potential conflict of interest when reviewing by external experts, members of the editorial board and/or editorial council may be involved in the review process.
Principles of selection of reviewers and actions of the journal editorial board to ensure high quality of expertise
The editorial board of the journal "VIRTUAL TECHNOLOGIES IN MEDICINE" carries out regular work on attracting recognized experts in the field of virtual and simulation technologies in medical education and clinical practice to work on the journal, as well as on timely rotation of reviewers. Reviewers are invited to work with the journal on the recommendation of the editor-in-chief, his deputy, members of the editorial board/council, as well as authors. The responsible editor of the journal regularly monitors publications on the subject of the journal in the Scopus, Web of Science, and RSCI databases and sends an invitation for collaboration to the authors of publications.
The first review of new reviewers is evaluated according to the following algorithm:
- Did the reviewer comment on the importance of the issue raised in the study?
- Did the reviewer comment on the originality of the manuscript?
- Did the reviewer identify the strengths and weaknesses of the study (research design, data collection, and analysis)?
- Did the reviewer provide useful comments on the language and structure of the article, tables, and figures?
- Were the reviewer's comments constructive?
- Did the reviewer provide arguments using examples from the article to support their comments?
- Did the reviewer comment on the author's interpretation of the results?
- Overall quality of the review.
For each of the points, from 1 to 5 points can be assigned, where 1 is the minimum score and 5 is the maximum.
If the editors are not satisfied with the quality of the review, cooperation with the reviewer is terminated.
The editors of the journal "VIRTUAL TECHNOLOGIES IN MEDICINE" have the right to evaluate an unlimited number of reviews from all experts involved in working with the journal using the presented algorithm.
The mechanism for involving reviewers in the journal's work
The editors of the journal "VIRTUAL TECHNOLOGIES IN MEDICINE" consider peer review to be one of the most important procedures when working with the journal and value the experience and time of the experts who are involved in the review process. The reviewers of the journal "VIRTUAL TECHNOLOGIES IN MEDICINE" have the right to priority publication, as well as to translate the text of the accepted article into English. The names of the reviewers and their places of work are published on the website of the journal "VIRTUAL TECHNOLOGIES IN MEDICINE" in the public domain, without indicating which articles they reviewed.
Confidentiality
The editorial board of the journal "VIRTUAL TECHNOLOGIES IN MEDICINE" does not transmit personal data of reviewers and personal data of authors. Any manuscript is considered by the editorial board of the journal "VIRTUAL TECHNOLOGIES IN MEDICINE" as a confidential document. The editorial board expects that reviewers will not share or discuss the texts of manuscripts with third parties without the editor's consent. Reviewers may involve third parties to work on the review only with the consent of the editor.
Responsibility of the reviewer
By agreeing to review manuscripts for the VIRTUAL TECHNOLOGIES IN MEDICINE journal, the reviewer agrees to follow the journal's policy when evaluating the manuscript, preparing the review, as well as regarding the reviewer's behavior and compliance with ethical requirements.
The reviewer should strive to ensure the high quality of the published materials in the journal "VIRTUAL TECHNOLOGIES IN MEDICINE", as well as the editor, and therefore should review the manuscript only if he has sufficient experience in the field under consideration and enough time for a thorough and comprehensive review of the article. The reviewer is obliged to inform the editor about a conflict of interest (personal, financial, intellectual, professional, political or religious), if any. In case of doubt, the situation should be discussed with the editor. The reviewer is obliged to refuse reviewing if:
- he is the supervisor or subordinate of the author of the manuscript, as well as the holder of joint grants;
- does not plan to prepare a review, but only wants to get acquainted with the text of the article;
- prepares for publication his own article on a similar topic;
- reviews an article on a similar topic.
The reviewer is obliged to inform the editor of his intention to review the article, as well as to complete the work within the deadline specified by the editor. If it is impossible to conduct a review for a number of reasons, it is advisable to recommend another expert to the editor. The reviewer cannot use his status for personal purposes and impose links to his works on the authors. All materials received from the editor of the journal are strictly confidential. The reviewer should not transfer materials to third parties or involve other specialists in reviewing the manuscript without the consent of the editor of the journal "VIRTUAL TECHNOLOGIES IN MEDICINE".
Recommendations to reviewers
For the convenience of the reviewer, the editorial board of the journal "VIRTUAL TECHNOLOGIES IN MEDICINE" suggests using the form for quick review — it reflects the questions that the editor needs to answer in order to make a decision about the article. The editorial board of the journal asks the reviewer to pay more attention to the “Comments” section in order to help the authors improve their current and subsequent work.
Content and structure of the review
The NEICON recommendations were used to create the section. The editorial board of the journal "VIRTUAL TECHNOLOGIES IN MEDICINE" has received permission from NEICON to use methodological recommendations in the journal's review policy. 10 criteria by which the manuscript should be evaluated:
- originality;
- logical rigor;
- Statistical rigor;
- clarity and conciseness of writing style;
- theoretical significance;
- reliable results;
- relevance for modern research fields;
- reproducibility of results;
- literature coverage;
- applying the results.
In addition to the form for quick review, the editorial board of the journal "VIRTUAL TECHNOLOGIES IN MEDICINE" recommends that reviewers adhere to the following review structure.
Comments for the editor
Conflict of interest — describes a real or potential conflict of interest related to the content of the manuscript or its authors, which may lead to a biased conclusion.
Confidential comments — this section is intended for comments that will not be shared with the authors. It includes the reviewer's final opinion on the fate of the manuscript, the reviewer's assumptions, the expression of doubts about a possible violation of ethics, as well as recommendations and accompanying comments (for example, the reviewer may advise the editor to request additional information from the author). The intended decision is usually a brief conclusion about the fate of the manuscript (accept for publication, accept for publication after minor revision, accept for publication after significant revision, reject, reject and invite the author to submit the article for review again).
Comments for authors
Introductory part — this section describes the main conclusions and the value of the article for readers. The main comments in this section describe the relevance to the goals and objectives of the journal, the level of credibility and ethical behavior. Special comments — the reviewer evaluates sections of the article (abstract, introduction, methods, results, discussion) or comments on specific pages, paragraphs, or lines. Recommendations to the author — the reviewer makes recommendations to the author to improve the quality of the manuscript and, possibly, future research. The final comment is a brief description of the strengths and weaknesses of the manuscript without any additional recommendations.
Criteria for evaluating the manuscript
Compliance with the subject area
You should not waste time reviewing an irrelevant manuscript, regardless of its quality. First of all, it is necessary to determine whether the manuscript corresponds to the subject area of the scientific journal and the interests of its audience.
Validity
Does the research design, scientific methods, structure and content, as well as the depth of analysis meet all the necessary requirements, does it deviate from the principles of impartial scientific research, and are the research results reproducible? Is the sample under study properly compiled? Has it been analyzed in sufficient detail to summarize the results of the study?
Novelty
Has the conducted research brought something new to the relevant subject area?
Ethics
Does the research meet the requirements of originality, is it approved by the expert council (if provided), is it impartial in terms of conflicts of interest? No matter how great the intended significance of a manuscript is, it cannot be allowed to be published in case of redundancy, plagiarism, or violation of the basic ethical principles of scientific research: legality, usefulness, and respect for people.
Evaluation of the manuscript elements
The editorial board of the journal "VIRTUAL TECHNOLOGIES IN MEDICINE" suggests using the following questions to speed up the process of preparing an expert opinion and presenting the most complete information about the article to the editor and the author.
The title
Does the title exactly match the content of the manuscript? Will the title attract readers' attention?
Annotation
Is the content of the manuscript presented properly in the abstract (is the abstract structured, with a description of goals, methods, results, and significance)? Are there any discrepancies between the abstract and the sections of the manuscript? Is it possible to understand the abstract without reading the manuscript?
Introduction
Is the introduction brief? Is the purpose of the study clearly defined and the task set? Does the author substantiate the relevance and significance of the research based on the literature review? If so, does this part meet the volume requirements? Does the author provide definitions of terms found in the manuscript? If the manuscript is referred to the "Original research" section, is there a clearly formulated hypothesis in it?
Literature review
How comprehensive is the literature review?
Methods
Will another researcher be able to reproduce the results of the study using the suggested methods, or are the methods not clear?
Do the authors justify their choice when describing research methods (for example, the choice of visualization methods, analytical tools, or statistical methods)?
If the authors make a hypothesis, have they developed methods that allow them to reasonably test the hypothesis?
How is the research design presented?
How does data analysis help in achieving the goal?
Results
Are the results clearly explained? Does the order of presentation of results coincide with the order of description of methods? Are the results justified and expected or unexpected? Are there any results that are not preceded by a corresponding description in the Methods section? How accurate is the presentation of the results?
Discussion
Is the discussion brief? If not, how can I shorten it? If a hypothesis has been voiced, do the authors report whether it has been confirmed or refuted? If the hypothesis has not been confirmed, do the authors report whether the question posed in the study has been answered? Are the conclusions of the authors consistent with the results obtained during the study? If unexpected results are obtained, do the authors analyze them appropriately? What is the potential contribution of research to the industry and to global science?
Conclusions
Do the authors note the limitations of the study? Are there any additional restrictions that should be noted? What is the opinion of the authors about these limitations? What is the opinion of the authors about the direction of future research?
List of literature
Does the list of references correspond to the format of the journal? Are there any bibliographic errors in the list of references? Are the references to articles from the list of references in the text of the article correct? Are there any important works that are not mentioned, but that should be noted? Are there more links in the article than necessary? Are the cited references relevant?
Tables
If there are tables in the article, do they describe the results correctly? Should I add one or more tables to the article? Are the data presented in the tables processed appropriately and facilitate the perception of information, rather than complicate it?
Drawings
Are tables and figures an appropriate choice for the task? Is it possible to illustrate the results in another way? Do the drawings and graphs reliably show important results? Do I need to make changes to the drawings and graphs for a more accurate and visual presentation of the results? Do the captions to the drawings and graphs allow you to understand the information without referring to the manuscript itself? Disclosure of information about conflicts of interest
Is the information about financing and conflicts of interest clearly stated?
The reviewer's final decision
The editorial board of the journal "VIRTUAL TECHNOLOGIES IN MEDICINE" suggests using the following rationale for the reviewer's final decision.
Accept the article for publication
The reviewer understands that the article is ready for publication in the current submission. The article is well-founded, ethical, significant for the scientific community and complements the already published works, the writing style is clear and concise.
Accept it after a little revision
There are uncritical comments about the article that need to be corrected. This may be a poor style of the article, lack of clarity of presentation, insufficiently elaborated structure of the article, errors in references, duplication of information in figures and tables and in the text of the article. After making changes and re-evaluating the article, it can be accepted for publication.
Accept after significant revision and review of the article
There are serious shortcomings and errors in the article that affect the reliability of the results obtained: problems with ethics, research design, gaps in the description of research methods, poorly presented results or their incorrect interpretation, an insufficiently complete description of the limitations of the study, contradictory (or refuted by the author's own statements) conclusions, lack of references to important studies, unclear tables and drawings that require serious revision. After re-evaluation, the article can be accepted, rejected, or sent for additional examination. Such a decision often requires the collection of additional data from the author.
Reject
The work does not meet the goals and objectives of the journal, has one or more unavoidable shortcomings or serious ethical problems: consent to publication was not obtained in cases where it was necessary, the research methods are unethical, the methodology is discredited or erroneous (for example, a process that seriously affects the results is ignored). With this decision, the author should not submit the corrected document for review without a special request. The reviewer should give detailed comments explaining his decision, as they can help the author to significantly improve the work.
Reject and invite the author to submit the article for review again
The topic or question of the study is interesting, but the author uses incorrect or insufficiently reliable methods, therefore, the data obtained is also not reliable. Such a solution is also possible in cases where the article requires many changes or when it is not possible to obtain the requested additional information from the author. The authors are invited to conduct the study again, taking into account the recommended changes, and submit new results for review.
Editing reviews
The editorial board of the journal "VIRTUAL TECHNOLOGIES IN MEDICINE" expects that the reviews will be written in a friendly tone and in accordance with the rules of the Russian language. It is forbidden to become personal, insult the author, and pointlessly criticize any aspect of the research, the language and style of the manuscript, etc. The editorial board of the journal "VIRTUAL TECHNOLOGIES IN MEDICINE" tries to transmit reviews to the authors in their original form, however, in some cases it may be necessary to change the text of the review without losing its meaning (for example, when combining comments from several experts on the same issue or if there are confidential comments in the review section that is intended for the author). The editorial board of the journal "VIRTUAL TECHNOLOGIES IN MEDICINE" has the right to send a review for revision to an expert in case of a large number of errors or an unacceptable tone of the review.
Thanks to the reviewers
The editorial board of the journal "VIRTUAL TECHNOLOGIES IN MEDICINE" thanks the experts who participated in the evaluation of articles in 2025:
FULL name, regalia, affiliations
Full name, regalia, affiliations
Full name, regalia, affiliations
Publishing Ethics
The Publication Ethics and Publication Malpractice Statement of the journal "Virtual Technologies in Medicine" are based on the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) Code of Conduct guidelines available at www.publicationethics.org, and requirements for peer-reviewed medical journals ((http://health.elsevier.ru/attachments/editor/file/ethical_code_final.pdf), elaborated by the "Elsevier" Publishing House (in accordance with international ethical rules of scientific publications)
1. Introduction
1.1. The publication in a peer reviewed learned journal, serves many purposes outside of simple communication. It is a building block in the development of a coherent and respected network of knowledge. For all these reasons and more it is important to lay down standards of expected ethical behaviour by all parties involved in the act of publishing: the author, the journal editor, the peer reviewer, the publisher and the society for society-owned or sponsored journal: "Virtual Technologies in Medicine"
1.2.Publisher has a supporting, investing and nurturing role in the scholarly communication process but is also ultimately responsible for ensuring that best practice is followed in its publications.
1.3. Publisher takes its duties of guardianship over the scholarly record extremely seriously. Our journal programmes record «the minutes of science» and we recognise our responsibilities as the keeper of those «minutes» in all our policies not least the ethical guidelines that we have here adopted.
2. Duties of Editors
2.1.Publication decision – The Editor of a learned "Virtual Technologies in Medicine" is solely and independently responsible for deciding which of the articles submitted to the journal should be published, often working on conjunction with the relevant society (for society-owned or sponsored journals). The validation of the work in question and its importance to researchers and readers must always underwrite such decisions. The Editor may be guided by the policies of the "Virtual Technologies in Medicine" journal’s editorial board and constrained by such legal requirements as shall then be in force regarding libel, copyright infringement and plagiarism. The editor may confer with other editors or reviewers (or society officers) in making this decision.
2.2.Fair play – An editor should evaluate manuscripts for their intellectual content without regard to race, gender, sexual orientation, religious belief, ethnic origin, citizenship, or political philosophy of the authors.
2.3.Confidentiality – The editor and any editorial staff of "Virtual Technologies in Medicine" must not disclose any information about a submitted manuscript to anyone other than the corresponding author, reviewers, potential reviewers, other editorial advisers, and the publisher, as appropriate.
2.4.Disclosure and Conflicts of interest
2.4.1. Unpublished materials disclosed in a submitted manuscript must not be used in an editor’s own research without the express written consent of the author. Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not used for personal advantage.
2.4.2. Editors should recuse themselves (i.e. should ask a co-editor, associate editor or other member of the editorial board instead to review and consider) from considering manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies, or (possibly) institutions connected to the papers.
2.5.Vigilance over published record – An editor presented with convincing evidence that the substance or conclusions of a published paper are erroneous should coordinate with the publisher (and/or society) to promote the prompt publication of a correction, retraction, expression of concern, or other note, as may be relevant.
2.6.Involvement and cooperation in investigations – An editor should take reasonably responsive measures when ethical complaints have been presented concerning a submitted manuscript or published paper, in conjunction with the publisher (or society). Such measures will generally include contacting the author of the manuscript or paper and giving due consideration of the respective complaint or claims made, but may also include further communications to the relevant institutions and research bodies.
3. Duties of Reviewers
3.1.Contribution to Editorial Decisions – Peer review assists the editor in making editorial decisions and through the editorial communications with the author may also assist the author in improving the paper. Peer review is an essential component of formal scholarly communication, and lies at the heart of the scientific method. Publisher shares the view of many that all scholars who wish to contribute to publications have an obligation to do a fair share of reviewing.
3.2.Promptness – Any selected referee who feels unqualified to review the research reported in a manuscript or knows that its prompt review will be impossible should notify the editor of "Virtual Technologies in Medicine" and excuse himself from the review process.
3.3.Confidentiality – Any manuscripts received for review must be treated as confidential documents. They must not be shown to or discussed with others except as authorised by the editor.
3.4.Standard and objectivity – Reviews should be conducted objectively. Personal criticism of the author is inappropriate. Referees should express their views clearly with supporting arguments.
3.5.Acknowledgement of Sources – Reviewers should identify relevant published work that has not been cited by the authors. Any statement that an observation, derivation, or argument had been previously reported should be accompanied by the relevant citation. A reviewer should also call to the editor’s attention any substantial similarity or overlap between the manuscript under consideration and any other published paper of which they have personal knowledge.
3.6.Disclosure and Conflict of Interest
3.6.1.Unpublished materials disclosed in a submitted manuscript must not be used in a reviewer’s own research without the express written consent of the author. Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not used for personal advantage.
3.6.2. Reviewers should not consider manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies, or institutions connected to the papers.
4. Duties of Authors
4.1.Reporting standards
4.1.1. Authors of reports of original research should present an accurate account of the work performed as well as an objective discussion of its significance. Underlying data should be represented accurately in the paper. A paper should contain sufficient detail and references to permit others to replicate the work. Fraudulent or knowingly inaccurate statements constitute unethical behaviour and are unacceptable.
4.1.2. Review and professional publication articles should also be accurate and objective, and editorial 'opinion’ works should be clearly identified as such.
4.2.Data Access and Retention – Authors may be asked to provide the raw data in connection with a paper for editorial review, and should be prepared to provide public access to such data (consistent with the ALPSP-STM Statement on Data and Databases), if practicable, and should in any event be prepared to retain such data for a reasonable time after publication.
4.3.Originality and Plagiarism
4.3.1. The authors should ensure that they have written entirely original works, and if the authors have used the work and/or words of others, this has been appropriately cited or quoted.
4.3.2. Plagiarism takes many forms, from ‘passing off’ another’s paper as the author’s own paper, to copying or paraphrasing substantial parts of another’s paper (without attribution), to claiming results from research conducted by others. Plagiarism in all its forms constitutes unethical publishing behaviour and is unacceptable.
4.4.Multiple, Redundant or Concurrent Publication
4.4.1. An author should not in general publish manuscripts describing essentially the same research in more than one journal of primary publication. Submitting the same manuscript to more than one journal concurrently constitutes unethical publishing behaviour and is unacceptable.
4.4.2. In general, an author should not submit for consideration in another journal a previously published paper.
4.4.3. Publication of some kinds of articles (eg, clinical guidelines, translations) in more than one journal is sometimes justifiable, provided certain conditions are met. The authors and editors of the journals concerned must agree to the secondary publication, which must reflect the same data and interpretation of the primary document. The primary reference must be cited in the secondary publication. Further detail on acceptable forms of secondary publication can be found at www.icmje.org.
4.5.Acknowledgement of Sources – Proper acknowledgment of the work of others must always be given. Authors should cite publications that have been influential in determining the nature of the reported work. Information obtained privately, as in conversation, correspondence, or discussion with third parties, must not be used or reported without explicit, written permission from the source. Information obtained in the course of confidential services, such as refereeing manuscripts or grant applications, must not be used without the explicit written permission of the author of the work involved in these services.
4.6.Authorship of the Paper
4.6.1. Authorship should be limited to those who have made a significant contribution to the conception, design, execution, or interpretation of the reported study. All those who have made significant contributions should be listed as co-authors. Where there are others who have participated in certain substantive aspects of the research project, they should be acknowledged or listed as contributors.
4.6.2. The corresponding author should ensure that all appropriate co-authors and no inappropriate co-authors are included on the paper, and that all co-authors have seen and approved the final version of the paper and have agreed to its submission for publication.
4.7.Hazards and Human or Animal Subjects
4.7.1. If the work involves chemicals, procedures or equipment that have any unusual hazards inherent in their use, the author must clearly identify these in the manuscript.
4.7.2. If the work involves the use of animal or human subjects, the author should ensure that the manuscript contains a statement that all procedures were performed in compliance with relevant laws and institutional guidelines and that the appropriate institutional committee(s) have approved them. Authors should include a statement in the manuscript that informed consent was obtained for experimentation with human subjects. The privacy rights of human subjects must always be observed.
4.8. Disclosure and Conflicts of Interest
4.8.1. All authors should disclose in their manuscript any financial or other substantive conflict of interest that might be construed to influence the results or interpretation of their manuscript. All sources of financial support for the project should be disclosed.
4.8.2. Examples of potential conflicts of interest which should be disclosed include employment, consultancies, stock ownership, honoraria, paid expert testimony, patent applications/registrations, and grants or other funding. Potential conflicts of interest should be disclosed at the earliest possible stage.
4.9. Fundamental errors in published works – When an author discovers a significant error or inaccuracy in a published work, it is the author’s obligation to promptly notify the editor of "Virtual Technologies in Medicine" journal and cooperate with Publisher to retract or correct the paper, If the editor or the publisher learn from a third party that a published work contains a significant error, it is the obligation of the author to promptly retract or correct the paper.
5. Duties of the Publisher (and if relevant, Society)
5.1. Publisher should adopt policies and procedures that support editors, reviewers and authors of "Virtual Technologies in Medicine" in performing their ethical duties under these ethics guidelines. The publisher should ensure that the potential for advertising or reprint revenue has no impact or influence on editorial decisions.
5.2. The publisher should support "Virtual Technologies in Medicine" journal editors in the review of complaints raised concerning ethical issues and help communications with other journals and/or publishers where this is useful to editors.
5.3. Publisher should develop codes of practice and inculcate industry standards for best practice on ethical matters, errors and retractions.
5.4. Publisher should provide specialised legal review and counsel if necessary.
The section is prepared according to the files (http://health.elsevier.ru/attachments/editor/file/ethical_code_final.pdf) of Elsevier publisher (https://www.elsevier.com/) and files (http://publicationethics.org/resources) from Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE - http://publicationethics.org/).
Founder
- Gorshkov Maxim
Author fees
Publication in "Virtual Technologies in 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
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
"Virtual Technologies in 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.
Preprint and postprint Policy
Prior to acceptance and publication in "Virtual Technologies in Medicine", 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 "Virtual Technologies in Medicine" 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)
