Epilepsy and paroxysmal conditions

Advanced search

Editorial Policies

Aim and Scope

"Epilepsy and paroxysmal conditions" is a peer-reviewed journal for medical professionals.

The main goal of the journal is to publish high-quality original articles, scientific reviews, case studies, and lectures in all areas of neurology, neurobiology, neurosurgery and related fields.

Our priorities include scientific and information support to members of the "professional community" in their pursuit of new ideas in clinical research. The "Epilepsy and paroxysmal conditions" journal is proud to contribute to the continuing medical education (CME) of recent medical graduates and other experts in neurology, instrumental examination, therapy, pediatric, neonatology, rehabilitation and related fields.

As an open-access journal, "Epilepsy and paroxysmal conditions" is available in the Russian Federation and around the world.

The editorial board of "Epilepsy and Paroxysmal Conditions" includes distinguished experts and opinion leaders from Russia, Switzerland, Denmark, Lithuania, Belarus, Moldova, Georgia, Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan and Tajikistan.

The editorial team supports the policies of full compliance with the principles of international scientific publishing ethics. All submitted materials undergo a compulsory double-blind peer reviewing process.


Section Policies

Unchecked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Unchecked Peer Reviewed
Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed
Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed
Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed
Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed
Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed
Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed
Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed
Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed
Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed
Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed
Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed
Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed
Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed
Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed
Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed
Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed
Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed
Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed
Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed
Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed
Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed
Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed
Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed
Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed
Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed
Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed
Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed
Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed

Publication Frequency

4 issues per year


Open Access Policy

It 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 and preservation policy

Archiving and preservation can be seen as the set of processes and activities that ensure information which now exists mainly in digital formats is backed up and distributed to guarantee continued access for the long term. The digital content of the journal is extremely valuable and measures are in place to ensure both its current accessibility and long-term preservation. The preservation policy includes the following measures:

Content archiving

All of our electronic content is stored on two different sources. Content on one server is online and accessible to the readers. The copy of the same content is kept as a backup on other source. In case of failure of one server, the other source can be made online and website expected to be accessible within less than 24 hours.

Abstracting/Indexing services and full text access

Our journal’s abstracting/Indexing services store many essential information about the articles. Additionally, National Electronic-Information Consortium (NEICON), National Electronic Library ( and archive not only the metadata about the article, but the full texts, as well. Therefore, copies of the articles are available to the scientific community through their systems as an alternative to the journals own. Printed versions of all issues of the the journal are available in Russian State Library (RSL).


Authors may archive the final published version of their articles in personal or institutional repositories immediately after publication.

If the journal stops publishing

We intend and expect to continue to publish our journal for a very long time. If, due to some circumstances, we are forced to stop publishing the journal, the manuscripts published in the journal will be kept online and accessible to the readers for at least 10 more years. Also the content will be accessible through National Electronic Library (



A double-blind peer review method is mandatory for processing of all scientific manuscripts submitted to the editorial stuff of "Epilepsy and Paroxysmal Conditions". This implies that neither the reviewers are aware of the authorship of the manuscript, nor the author maintains any contact with the reviewers.

  1. Members of the editorial board and leading Russian and international experts in corresponding areas of life sciences, invited as independent readers, perform peer reviews. Editor-in-chief, deputy editor-in-chief or science editor choose readers for peer review. We aim to limit the review process to 2-4 weeks, though in some cases the schedule may be adjusted at the reviewer’s request.
  2. 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 paper in its present state;
    - to invited the author to revise their manuscript to address specific concerns before final decision is reached;
    - that final decision be reached following further reviewing by another specialist;
    - to reject the manuscript outright.
  3. 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 2 months and resubmit the adapted manuscript within this period for final evaluation.
  4. 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 3 months since receiving a copy of the initial review, the editorial board takes the manuscript off the register and notifies the author accordingly.
  5. If author and reviewers meet insoluble contradictions regarding revision of the manuscript, the editor-in-chief resolves the conflict by his own authority.
  6. The editorial board reaches final decision to reject a manuscript on the hearing according to reviewers’ recommendations, and duly notifies the authors of their decision via e-mail. The board does not accept previously rejected manuscripts for re-evaluation.
  7. Upon the decision to accept the manuscript for publishing, the editorial staff notifies the authors of the scheduled date of publication.
  8. Kindly note that positive review does not guarantee the acceptance, as final decision in all cases lies with the editorial board. By his authority, editor-in-chief rules final solution of every conflict.
  9. Original reviews of submitted manuscripts remain deposited for 3 years.



Articles in "Epilepsy and paroxysmal conditions" are indexed by several systems:

  • Scopus
  • Embase
  • 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 (
  • 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.
  • Cyberleninka
  • Dimensions


Publishing Ethics

The Publication Ethics and Publication Malpractice Statement of the journal "Epilepsy and paroxysmal 
 are based on the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) Code of Conduct guidelines available at,  and requirements for peer-reviewed medical journals ((, 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: Epilepsy and paroxysmal conditions” 

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 Epilepsy and paroxysmal conditions”  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 Epilepsy and paroxysmal conditions 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 Epilepsy and paroxysmal conditions 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 Epilepsy and paroxysmal conditions” 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

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 Epilepsy and paroxysmal conditions” 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 Epilepsy and paroxysmal conditions”  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 Epilepsy and paroxysmal conditions” 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  of Elsevier publisher ( and files ( from Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE - 






Author fees

All articles published in the journal are open access and freely available online, immediately upon publication. This is made possible by an article-processing charge (APC) that covers the range of publishing services we provide. This includes article production and hosting, liaison with abstracting and indexing services, and customer services.

Paid services include accelerated peer-review, placement in the "Online First" section, translation into English by a native speaker, fast track publication in the upcoming issue. Detailed information can be found here (In Russ.).

The APC, payable when your manuscript is accepted by Editorial Screening team, who perform initial technical/ethical checks and before peer-review step, is charged to either you, or your funder, institution or employer.

The APC does not affect the peer-review process. If the article was rejected based on a double-blind peer-review outcome, the APC are not refunded.

Payment can be made by any of the following methods:

  • Online - payment can be made using a secure payment service Robokassa (credit card, mobile payments etc.) - for Russia and Kazakhstan only. We will send a receipt by email once payment has been processed.
  • Invoice - payment can be made by author, funder or institution within 30 days of the manuscript receiving editorial acceptance.

We consider individual waiver requests on a case-by-case basis. In particular, article processing may be available on preferential terms of free-of-charge for postgraduate students. To apply for a waiver please request one during the submission process. A decision on the waiver will normally be made within two working days. Requests made after initial acceptance or during the peer-review process will not be considered.

Please visit IRBIS Publishing House website to get detailed information (In Russ.)


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

"Epilepsy and paroxysmal conditions"  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 "Epilepsy and paroxysmal conditions", 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 "Epilepsy and paroxysmal conditions"  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)

Preprint - In the context of Open Access, a preprint is a draft of an academic article or other publication before it has been submitted for peer-review or other quality assurance procedure as part of the publication process. Preprints cover initial and successive drafts of articles, working papers or draft conference papers.
Postprint - The final version of an academic article or other publication - after it has been peer-reviewed and revised into its final form by the author. As a general term this covers both the author's final version and the version as published, with formatting and copy-editing changes in place.


Policy on retraction or correction of articles

Journal editors should consider retracting a publication if:

  • they have clear evidence that the findings are unreliable, either as a result of misconduct (e.g. data fabrication) or honest error (e.g. miscalculation or experimental error)
  • the findings have previously been published elsewhere without proper cross-referencing, permission or justification (i.e. cases of redundant publication)
  • it constitutes plagiarism
  • it reports unethical research

Journal editors should consider issuing an expression of concern if:

  • they receive inconclusive evidence of research or publication misconduct by the authors
  • there is evidence that the findings are unreliable, but the authors’ institution will not investigate the case
  • they believe that an investigation into alleged misconduct related to the publication either has not been, or would not be, fair and impartial or conclusive
  • an investigation is underway, but a judgement will not be available for a considerable time

Journal editors should consider issuing a correction if:

  • a small portion of an otherwise reliable publication proves to be misleading (especially because of honest error)
  • the author / contributor list is incorrect (i.e. a deserving author has been omitted or somebody who does not meet authorship criteria has been included)

Retractions are not usually appropriate if:

  • a change of authorship is required but there is no reason to doubt the validity of the findings

Notices of retraction should:

  • be linked to the retracted article wherever possible (i.e. in all electronic versions) •clearly identify the retracted article (e.g. by including the title and authors in the retraction heading)
  • be clearly identified as a retraction (i.e. distinct from other types of correction or comment)
  • be published promptly to minimize harmful effects from misleading publications
  • be freely available to all readers (i.e. not behind access barriers or available only to subscribers)
  • state who is retracting the article
  • state the reason(s) for retraction (to distinguish misconduct from honest error)
  • avoid statements that are potentially defamatory or libelous

The purpose of retraction

Retraction is a mechanism for correcting the literature and alerting readers to publications that contain such seriously flawed or erroneous data that their findings and conclusions cannot be relied upon. Unreliable data may result from honest error or from research misconduct.

Retractions are also used to alert readers to cases of redundant publication (i.e. when authors present the same data in several publications), plagiarism, and failure to disclose a major competing interest likely to influence interpretations or recommendations.
The main purpose of retractions is to correct the literature and ensure its integrity rather than to punish authors who misbehave.

What form should a retraction take?

Notices of retraction should mention the reasons and basis for the retraction, to distinguish cases of misconduct from those of honest error; they should also specify who is retracting the article. They should be published in all versions of the journal (i.e. print and/or electronic). It is helpful to include the authors and title of the retracted article in the retraction heading.

Retracted articles should be clearly identified as such in all electronic sources (e.g. on the journal website and any bibliographic databases). Editors are responsible for ensuring that retractions are labelled in such a way that they are identified by bibliographic databases (which should also include a link to the retracted article). The retraction should appear on all electronic searches for the retracted publication. Journals and publishers should ensure that retracted articles are clearly marked on their own websites.
Retracted articles should not be removed from printed copies of the journal (e.g. in libraries) nor from electronic archives but their retracted status should be indicated as clearly as possible.

Which publications should be retracted?

If only a small part of an article reports flawed data, and especially if this is the result of genuine error, then the problem is best rectified by a correction or erratum. (The term erratum usually refers to a production error, caused by the journal. The term corrigendum (or correction) usually refers to an author error.) Partial retractions are not helpful because they make it difficult for readers to determine the status of the article and which parts may be relied upon.
Similarly, if only a small section of an article (e.g. a few sentences in the discussion) is plagiarized, editors should consider whether readers (and the plagiarized author) would be best served by a correction (which could note the fact that text was used without appropriate acknowledgement) rather than retracting the entire article which may contain sound, original data in other parts. Retraction should usually be reserved for publications that are so seriously flawed (for whatever reason) that their findings or conclusions should not be relied upon.

If redundant publication has occurred (i.e. authors have published the same data or article in more than one journal without appropriate justification, permission or cross-referencing) the journal that first published the article may issue a notice of redundant publication but should not retract the article unless the findings are unreliable. Any journals that subsequently publish a redundant article should retract it and state the reason for the retraction.
If an article is submitted to more than one journal simultaneously and is accepted and published in both journals (either electronically or in print) at the same time, precedence may be determined by the date on which a license to publish or a copyright transfer agreement was signed by the authors.

In cases of partial overlap (i.e. when authors present some new findings in an article that also contains a substantial amount of previously published information) editors need to consider whether readers are best served if the entire article is retracted or whether it would be best to issue a notice of redundant publication clarifying which aspects had been published previously and providing appropriate cross-references to the earlier work. This will depend on the amount of overlap. Editors should bear in mind that the main purpose of retractions is to correct the literature and ensure its integrity rather than to punish authors who misbehave.
Only published items can be retracted. Guidelines on dealing with redundant publications identified in submitted manuscripts can be found in the relevant COPE flowchart [ ]. Posting a final version on a website constitutes publication even if an article has not appeared (or will not appear) in print. If an article is retracted before it appears in the print version of a journal, the electronic version should be retained on the journal’s website with a clear notice of retraction and it should be included on bibliographic databases (e.g. with a digital object identifier [DOI] or other permanent citation that will locate it) even if it does not appear in the printed journal and therefore does not receive a page allocation. This is because electronic versions may already have been accessed and cited by researchers who need to be alerted to the fact that the article has been retracted.

Who should issue the retraction?

Articles may be retracted by their author(s) or by the journal editor. In some cases, retractions are issued jointly or on behalf of the journal’s owner (e.g. a learned society or publisher). However, since responsibility for the journal’s content rests with the editor s/he should always have the final decision about retracting material. Journal editors may retract publications (or issue expressions of concern) even if all or some of the authors refuse to retract the publication themselves.

When should a publication be retracted?

Publications should be retracted as soon as possible after the journal editor is convinced that the publication is seriously flawed and misleading (or is redundant or plagiarized). Prompt retraction should minimize the number of researchers who cite the erroneous work, act on its findings or draw incorrect conclusions, such as from ‘double counting’ redundant publications in meta-analyses or similar instances. If editors have convincing evidence that a retraction is required, they should not delay retraction simply because the authors are not cooperative. However, if an allegation of misconduct related to a potential retraction results in a disciplinary hearing or institutional investigation, it is normally appropriate to wait for the outcome of this before issuing a retraction (but an expression of concern may be published to alert readers in the interim – see below).

What should editors do in the face of inconclusive evidence about a publication’s reliability?

If conclusive evidence about the reliability of a publication cannot be obtained (e.g. if authors produce conflicting accounts of the case, authors’ institutions refuse to investigate alleged misconduct or to release the findings of such investigations, or if investigations appear not to have been carried out fairly or are taking an unreasonably long time to reach a conclusion) editors should issue an expression of concern rather than retracting the publication immediately. Such expressions of concern, like retraction notices, should be clearly linked to the original publication (i.e. in electronic databases and by including the author and title of the original publication as a heading) and should state the reasons for the concern. If more conclusive evidence about the publication’s reliability becomes available later, the expression of concern should be replaced by a notice of retraction (if the article is shown to be unreliable) or by an exonerating statement linked to the expression of concern (if the article is shown to be reliable and the author exonerated).

Should retraction be applied in cases of disputed authorship?

Authors sometimes request that articles are retracted when authorship is disputed after publication. If there is no reason to doubt the validity of the findings or the reliability of the data it is not appropriate to retract a publication solely on the grounds of an authorship dispute. In such cases, the journal editor should inform those involved in the dispute that s/he cannot adjudicate in such cases but will be willing to publish a correction to the author/contributor list if the authors/contributors (or their institutions) provide appropriate proof that such a change is justified.
(For authorship disputes occurring before publication, see the relevant COPE flowcharts. and

Can authors dissociate themselves from a retracted publication?

If retraction is due to the actions of some, but not all, authors of a publication, the notice of retraction should mention this. However, most editors consider that authorship entails some degree of joint responsibility for the integrity of the reported research, so it is not appropriate for authors to dissociate themselves from a retracted publication even if they were not directly culpable of any misconduct.

Are there grounds for legal proceedings if an author sues a journal for retracting, or refusing to retract, a publication?

Authors who disagree with a retraction (or whose request to retract a publication is refused) sometimes threaten journal editors with legal action. Concern over litigation can make editors reluctant to retract articles, especially in the face of opposition from authors.
Journals’ instructions for authors should explain the retraction procedure and describe the circumstances under which articles might be retracted. This information should be incorporated (e.g. by references) into any publishing agreements and brought to the authors’ attention. However, even if the publishing agreement or journal instructions do not set out specific conditions for retraction, authors usually would not have grounds for taking legal action against a journal over the act of retraction if it follows a suitable investigation and proper procedures.

However, legal advice may be helpful to determine appropriate wording for a notice of retraction or expression of concern to ensure that these are not defamatory or libelous. Nevertheless, retraction notices should always mention the reason(s) for retraction to distinguish honest error from misconduct.

Whenever possible, editors should negotiate with authors and attempt to agree a form of wording that is clear and informative to readers and acceptable to all parties. If authors consent to the wording of a retraction statement, this provides defense against a libel claim. However, prolonged negotiations about wording should not be allowed to delay the publication of a retraction unreasonably and editors should publish retractions even if consensus cannot be reached.

The Policy based on:
WagerE., Barbour V., Yentis S., Kleinert S. on behalf of COPE Council. Retractions: Guidance from the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). Electronic resource [].
Translated in Russian by Russian Association of Science Editors and Publishers (ASEP). Электронный ресурс []


The position in relation to the authorship

Based on ICMJE recommendations and [McNutt et al., Proceedings of National Academy of Sciences, Feb 2018, 201715374; DOI: 10.1073 / pnas.1715374115]

All members of the group of authors should meet all four criteria of authorship set forth in the ICMJE recommendations: 
1) concept and design development or data analysis and interpretation
2) manuscript justification or verification of critical intellectual content
3) final approval for publication of the manuscript
4) consent to be responsible for all aspects of the work and assume that issues relating to the thoroughness and diligent execution of all parts of the study submitted are duly investigated and resolved (even ones in which the author was not personally involved).
Сontributors do not meet all four authorship criteria could be mentioned in the Acknowledgements section. Their functions may be: funding, general management of the research team, general administrative support, participation in writing, technical revision of the text, scientific revision of the text, correction and proofreading. Their contribution to the work must be defined in writing (as example, scientific consultant, medical writer, critical data analysis, data collection, etc.)

The journal does not require all authors of a manuscript to sign the letter of submission, nor do they impose an order on the list of authors. Submission to the journal is taken by the journal to mean that all the listed authors have agreed all of the contents, including the author list and author contribution statements. The corresponding author is responsible for having ensured that this agreement has been reached that all authors have agreed to be so listed, and have approved the manuscript submission to the journal, and for managing all communication between the journal and all co-authors, before and after publication. The corresponding author is also responsible for submitting a competing interests' statement on behalf of all authors of the paper.

It is expected that the corresponding author will be responsible for the following with respect to data:
• ensuring that data comply with transparency and reproducibility standards;
• ensuring that original data upon which the submitted manuscript is based are preserved following best practices in the field so that they are used for reanalysis;
• confirming that data presentation accurately reflects the original;
• foreseeing and minimizing obstacles to the sharing of data described in the work
• ensuring that all authors (or group leaders in multi-center collaborations) have certified the author list and author contributions

At submission, the corresponding author must include written permission from the authors of the work concerned for mention of any unpublished material cited in the manuscript (for example others' data in press manuscripts; personal communications or work in preparation). The corresponding author also must clearly identify at submission any material within the manuscript (such as figures) that has been published previously elsewhere and provide written permission from authors of the prior work and/or publishers, as appropriate, for the re-use of such material.

After acceptance, the corresponding author is responsible for the accuracy of all content in the proof, including the names of coauthors, addresses and affiliations.

After publication, the corresponding author is the point of contact for queries about the published paper. It is his/her responsibility to inform all co-authors of any matters arising in relation to the published paper and to ensure such matters are dealt with promptly. Authors of published material have a responsibility to inform the journal immediately if they become aware of any aspects that requires correction.

Any changes to the author list after submission, such as a change in the order of the authors or the deletion or addition of authors, must be approved by every author. The journal editors are not in a position to investigate or adjudicate authorship disputes before or after publication. Such disagreements, if they cannot be resolved amongst authors, should be directed to the relevant institutional authority.

Consortia authorship

If a consortium is listed as a collective of authors, all members of the consortium are considered authors and must be listed in the published article as such. If not all members of the consortium agree to the responsibilities of authorship, the members that are authors will be listed separately from those who are not. To facilitate submission of manuscripts with large author lists, please consult the journal editor before submission.

Author contribution statements

The journal encourage transparency by publishing author contribution statements. Authors are required to include a statement of contribution in the manuscript, that specifies the contribution of every author. It’also allow to specify as each author having contributed equally to the work or having jointly supervised the work. Corresponding authors having specific responsibilities (described above) usually one.

Author identification

As part of efforts to improve transparency and unambiguous attribution of scholarly contributions, authors of manuscripts must provide their Web of Science ResearcherID, Open Researcher and Contributor Identifier (ORCID), Scopus ID, RCSI spin-code (if any).


Policy on the use of artificial intelligence tools

Authors who use artificial intelligence (AI) tools including large language or graph models (neural networks) such as ChatGPT, DALL-E 2, Midjourney etc. in the writing of a manuscript, production of images or graphical elements of the paper, or in the collection and analysis of data, must be transparent in disclosing in the Materials and Methods of the paper how the AI tool was used, and which AI tool was used. Authors are fully responsible for the content of their manuscript, even those parts produced by an AI tool, and are thus liable for any breach of publication ethics.

AI tools cannot meet the requirements for authorship as they cannot take responsibility for the submitted work. Particularly, AI tools cannot assert the presence or absence of conflicts of interest nor manage copyright and license agreements. Therefore, any manuscripts where AI to be named as an co-author are screened out at the initial technical/ethical checks and before peer-review step.


Clinical trials data sharing policy

According to the latest recommendations of the ICMJE, when submitting an article containing data on a clinical study, the authors should submit a separate document "Statement on data sharing".

In accordance with statement of the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors, as of July 1, 2018, manuscripts submitted to the journal that report the results of clinical trials must contain a data sharing statement. Clinical trials that begin enrolling participants on or after January 1, 2019, must include a data sharing plan in the trial's registration. The ICMJE's policy regarding trial registration is explained at If the data sharing plan changes after registration, this should be reflected in the statement submitted and published with the manuscript and updated in the registry record.

Please see below examples of data sharing statements that fulfill the ICMJE requirements