Peer review ethics

When preparing a review, particular attention is given to the following indicators:

• scientific novelty of the research;
• practical and theoretical significance of the results;
• originality of the scientific approach;
• relevance of the research topic;
• reliability of the presented data;
• compliance with the current level of scientific and practical development.

Each of the above criteria must be addressed in the review in a detailed and reasoned manner.

The review must be prepared objectively, professionally, and constructively.

The following are not permitted:

• emotional, demeaning, or discrediting comments;
• subjective criticism without scientific justification;
• biased assessment of the author’s work;
• remarks based solely on the reviewer’s personal stylistic preferences.

All comments must be specific, reasoned, and supported by scientific arguments.

The reviewer is obliged to:

• promptly notify the editorial office of their agreement or refusal to conduct the review;
• observe the established deadlines for preparing the review and not delay the manuscript evaluation process;
• maintain full confidentiality of all materials submitted for review;
• not transfer the manuscript to third parties or involve other specialists without the editorial office’s approval;
• not use the article’s materials for personal or professional purposes prior to its official publication;
• indicate what additional research, clarifications, or scientific data could strengthen the submitted work;
• immediately notify the editorial office upon identifying a conflict of interest;
• promptly inform the editorial office if the reviewer’s competence is insufficient for a full evaluation of certain sections of the manuscript.

The article must be formatted in accordance with the author guidelines established by the journal’s editorial office.
The scientific work must meet the following requirements:

• contain complete and sufficient information on the research topic;
• have a logical, complete, and self-contained structure;
• correspond to the journal’s subject area;
• be accompanied by illustrative material only when necessary, if it enhances comprehension and does not duplicate the text.

The article’s materials must reflect current scientific and practical achievements and be based on the principles of evidence-based medicine and scientific validity.
The following requirements are mandatory:

• accuracy and soundness of the presented results;
• use of current scientific classifications, international standards, and nomenclatures;
• application of the International Classification of Diseases (ICD), the International System of Units (SI), and current clinical protocols;
• correct indication of drug names: the International Nonproprietary Name (INN) first, followed by the trade name where necessary;
• compliance with the current legislation of the Republic of Uzbekistan in the fields of healthcare, science, and education.

A scientific article must be written clearly, consistently, and professionally.
The following are mandatory:

• a clear text structure: title, abstract, keywords, introduction, materials and methods, results, discussion, conclusion, references;
• logical sequence in the presentation of material;
• unambiguous use of scientific terminology;
• accessibility of formulations for a specialist scientific audience;
• compliance with the norms of contemporary literary language;
• exclusion of excessive introductory constructions, unjustified abbreviations, and secondary explanations;
• permissible highlighting of key points in italics or bold where necessary.

Discussional scientific articles that do not contradict legislation, academic ethics standards, or public interests may be accepted for publication following mandatory peer review.
If necessary, the editorial office reserves the right to accompany such a publication with an editorial comment or an official statement from the editorial board.

In the final section of the review, the reviewer formulates a reasoned conclusion regarding the possibility of publishing the article:

• recommended for publication;
• recommended for publication after revision;
• recommended for re-review;
• not recommended for publication.

In the case of a negative conclusion, the reasons for rejection must be stated clearly, with justification, and professionally.
The review is signed by the reviewer with mandatory indication of:

• full name;
• place of employment;
• position held;
• academic degree and academic title;
• date of the review.

The review may be submitted to the editorial office in either printed or electronic form in accordance with the procedure established by the editorial office.