Aim and Scope

The strategic goals of the monthly peer-reviewed scientific and practical journal Public Health and Life Environment – PH&LE [Zdorov’e Naseleniya i Sreda Obitaniya – ZNiSO] include constant improvement and development, creation of an exceptionally positive image in the global community of researchers and experts, and occupying a leading position among journals in hygiene, epidemiology, public health and health care, occupational medicine, sociology of medicine, medico-social expert examination and rehabilitation.

To implement the strategy, the objectives have been formulated as follows:

• to earn international appreciation, create new opportunities for dissemination of scientific knowledge, generate interest and emphasize the value of publications for an international readership;
• to ensure timely and full access for all members of the scientific community to the latest information and results of research and practical achievements in the field of preventive medicine (hygiene, epidemiology, public health and health care, occupational medicine, sociology of medicine, medical and social expert examination and rehabilitation) and to improve the quality of the research through quality peer review of manuscripts; and
• to contribute to specialized subject areas (hygiene, epidemiology, public health and health, occupational medicine, sociology of medicine, medico-social expert examination and rehabilitation), to draw attention to current challenges in science and practice, and to enhance support for scientific research in the society.

In view of the strategic goals, the journal aims to fulfil the following tasks:

• to broaden its publishing activities by expanding the geographical coverage of published data (including a greater involvement of representatives of the international scientific community);
• to strictly follow the principles of research and publishing ethics, to impartially evaluate and carefully select manuscripts in order to eliminate unethical research practices and behavior of authors and to avoid plagiarism; and
• to ensure the freedom of the content, editorial board and editorial council of the journal from commercial, financial or other pressure that discredits its impartiality or undermines confidence in it.

Last updated: April 14, 2022

Thematic Sections

MEDICAL SOCIOLOGY

Open Submissions

Indexed

Peer Reviewed

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH

Open Submissions

Indexed

Peer Reviewed

PEDIATRIC HYGIENE

Open Submissions

Indexed

Peer Reviewed

COMMUNAL HYGIENE

Open Submissions

Indexed

Peer Reviewed

EPIDEMIOLOGY

Open Submissions

Indexed

Peer Reviewed

ISSUES OF MANAGEMENT AND SOCIAL HYGIENE

Open Submissions

Indexed

Peer Reviewed

MEDICAL AND SOCIAL EXPERTISE AND REHABILITATION

Open Submissions

Indexed

Peer Reviewed

FOOD HYGIENE

Open Submissions

Indexed

Peer Reviewed

RADIATION HYGIENE

Open Submissions

Indexed

Peer Reviewed

EXPERIENCE EXCHANGE

Open Submissions

Indexed

Peer Reviewed

OCCUPATIONAL MEDICINE

Open Submissions

Indexed

Peer Reviewed

ANNIVERSARIES AND MEMORABLE DATES

Open Submissions

Indexed

Peer Reviewed

IN MEMORY OF A COLLEAGUE

Open Submissions

Indexed

Peer Reviewed

MARKING THE CENTENARY OF THE RUSSIAN SANITARY AND EPIDEMIOLOGICAL SERVICE

Open Submissions

Indexed

Peer Reviewed

ANNIVERSARIES

Open Submissions

Indexed

Peer Reviewed

Publication Frequency

Once a month

Delayed Open Access

The contents of this journal will be available in an open access format 6 month(s) after an issue is published.

Archiving

• Russian State Library (RSL)
• National Electronic Information Consortium (NEICON)

Peer Review

1. General

1.1. A double blind peer review process is mandatory for all manuscripts submitted to the journal Public Health and Life Environment. This implies that neither the reviewer, who is not part of the editorial board, is aware of the authorship of the manuscript, nor the author knows the name of the reviewer.

1.2. The anonymity of the author limits the bias of the reviewer caused by the gender and age of the author, his country of origin, academic and socio-economic status, and/or the history of previous publications.

1.3. Articles written by reputable or well-known authors are judged impartially based on their content but not authors’ reputation.

1.4. An unbiased, independent, and critical peer review is an important addition to the scientific process that helps improve the quality and ensure credibility of papers published in the journal.

1.5. Authors shall guarantee that their manuscripts are prepared in such a way that they do not reveal their identity to reviewers, directly or indirectly. To refer to works published by the authors before, it is necessary to indicate the authors in the third person.

1.6. The rules of publishing and reviewing articles are posted on the website of the journal (https://zniso.fcgie.ru/jour).

1.7. Manuscripts submitted to the journal are not returned to authors.

1.8. If the editorial team does not share the views of the author of a published manuscript, it has the right to specify this in a footnote.

1.9. The fact of submitting a manuscript to the journal implies that the author has recognized the terms of peer review and processing of the manuscript by the editorial board, its publication in the journal, including translation and other amendments. It also implies that, as soon as the manuscript is published, the author grants the journal the right to use the article at its discretion in order to bring it to the general knowledge, reproduce, distribute and post the text of the article and links to it in information and other databases.

1.10. The editors urge the reviewers to adhere to the ethics of scientific publications and the principles proclaimed in the COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers, developed by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), and to the publishing ethics of the journal Public Health and Life Environment.

2. Editorial Procedures and Peer Review

2.1. Preliminary check of submitted manuscripts for compliance with formal requirements

When a manuscript is received by the editorial board, the executive secretary screens it for compliance with formal requirements, including the topics and general requirements of the journal for article formatting (title page, completeness and correctness of data, quality of illustrations and appropriateness of references), plagiarism, illegal borrowings, and availability of accompanying documents.

2.2. If the requirements of the journal are violated, the executive secretary may advise the author to bring the manuscript in line with author guidelines; the manuscripts that fail to meet the requirements for publication ethics and standards of the journal are neither registered nor allowed for further consideration, and the authors are notified accordingly in any convenient way.

2.3. If the requirements of the journal are met, the executive secretary sends the article for evaluation to the scientific editor, who checks the scientific context of the manuscript for the following:

– compliance of the manuscript with the targets and goals of the journal;

– general scientific rigor of the manuscript;

– structure of work;

– correct use and spelling of scientific and technical terms, application of current standards/regulations, symbols, units of measurement, etc.

2.4. Having reviewed the manuscript, the scientific editor writes a conclusion expressing the opinion on further processing of the manuscript, e.g.:

– peer review of the original version of the manuscript;

– revision of the manuscript (attaching the list of drawbacks) or its substantial revision (indicating principal directions of revision);

– rejection of the manuscript without any peer review;

and submits the conclusion to the executive secretary.

At this stage, the manuscript may be rejected due to its inconsistency with the goals of the journal, lack of scientific rigor or originality. Decisions made during the screening phase are scrutinized by the editor-in-chief (or the deputy).

2.5. Peer review

The approved manuscript is sent for review to at least two independent (external) reviewers from among the leading Russian and foreign experts in the subject area, working in the fields corresponding to the topic of the manuscript and having articles on this topic published within the last three years.

These experts may also include editorial board members and guest editors of the journal with the appropriate experience. Potential reviewers suggested during the submission process (e.g., from among the authors frequently cited in the manuscript) may also be considered. The proposed reviewers should neither be current collaborators of the co-authors nor have published with any of the co-authors of the manuscript within the last five years. They should also be from different institutions to the authors. The editors will not necessarily approach the suggested reviewers, but, if suggested, their detailed contact information (address, phone, e-mail address) shall be provided by the authors.

According to the policy of the journal, manuscripts written by the editor-in-chief and his deputies, members of the editorial board and editorial council, executive secretary and/or other persons affiliated with the journal are considered as impartially as the manuscripts by third-party authors.

2.6. The editor-in-chief or his deputy decides on the choice of peer reviewers.

2.7. Having expressed consent to the request of the editors to review the article, the reviewer receives the manuscript for evaluation and shall then act in accordance with the recommendations below, Elsevier’s recommendations, and publication ethics.

2.8. Peer review is carried out confidentially. Any manuscript received for review should be treated as a confidential document. Reviewers are notified that the manuscripts they receive are the property of the authors. Unpublished data obtained from the submitted manuscripts shall not be used in personal research without a written permission from the author.

The reviewer has an option to abnegate the assessment should any conflict of interests arise that may affect perception or interpretation of the manuscript.

Peer review is done on a voluntary basis.

2.9. The term for peer review is determined so that the manuscript can be published as soon as possible. We aim to limit the review process to 4–6 weeks, though in some cases it may be adjusted at the reviewer’s request.

Any selected reviewer feeling a lack of qualifications on the topic or unable to complete the review in time should notify the editor-in-chief hereof and ask to exclude him from the review process.

In case of refusal, the reviewer may suggest alternative reviewers of the manuscript in question.

2.10. The reviewer is asked to fill in a specially developed review form or write a detailed review.

2.11. The review shall cover the following issues:

2.11.1. compliance with the subject area (Is the submitted manuscript compliant with the subject of the journal and the interests of its readers?);

2.11.2. scientific rigor (Does the work meet all the necessary requirements in terms of research design, methods, structure and content, as well as the depth of analysis? Does it comply with principles of impartial scientific research? Can the research results be reproduced? Has the study sample been selected properly? Is the analysis sufficient to summarize research findings?)

2.11.3. scientific novelty, theoretical and practical significance of the data presented (Has the research contributed to the relevant subject area?);

2.11.4. compliance with ethical standards (Does the study meet the requirements for originality? Has it been approved by an Ethics Committee? Is it impartial in terms of conflicts of interest?)

2.11.5. Evaluation of the elements of the manuscript

The reviewer may be asked to use the questions for each section to speed up the process of preparing an expert opinion and provide the most complete information about the manuscript to the editor and the author:

• Title

Does the title match the contents of the manuscript?

Will the title attract readers’ attention?

• Summary

Is the content of the paper properly set out in the summary (is the summary structured, describing objectives, methods, results and significance)?

Are there any discrepancies between the summary and sections of the manuscript?

Is it possible to understand the summary without reading the whole paper?

• Introduction

Is the introduction brief?

Are the research goals and tasks clearly defined?

Does the author substantiate the relevance and significance of the study based on a literature review? If so, does this part meet the length requirements?

Does the author provide definitions of terms that appear in the manuscript?

• Literature review

Is the literature review holistic and comprehensive?

• Methods

Will another researcher be able to reproduce the research results using the proposed methods, or the methods are not clear?

Do authors justify their choice when describing research methods (for example, choice of imaging methods, analytical tools, or statistical methods)?

If authors make a hypothesis, have they developed methods that allow its reasonable testing?

How is the study design presented?

How does the data analysis help achieve the study objective?

• Results

Are the results clearly explained?

Does the order of presenting the results match the order of describing methods?

Are the results justified and expected or unexpected?

Are there results that are not preceded by an appropriate description in the Methods section?

How accurate is the presentation of the results?

• Discussion

Is the discussion brief? If not, how can it be abridged?

If the hypothesis has been put forward, do the authors describe whether it has been confirmed or denied? If the hypothesis was not confirmed, do the authors report whether the question posed in the study was answered?

Are the authors’ conclusions consistent with the study results?

Do the authors properly analyze unexpected findings, if any?

What is the potential contribution of the research to the branch and global science?

• Conclusion(s)

Do the authors specify limitations of the study? Are there any additional limitations that should be specified?

What is the opinion of the authors on these limitations?

What are the authors’ views on the direction of future research?

• Bibliography (References)

Is the bibliography compliant with the formatting requirements of the journal?

Are their bibliographic errors in the references?

Do in-text citations correspond to appropriate entries in the reference list?

Are there any important publications that are not mentioned but should be noted?

Are there more cited sources in the article than necessary?

Are in-text citations relevant?

• Tables

Does the article contain tables? Do they present results correctly?

Shall one or several tables be added to the article?

Have the tabulated data been processed appropriately and do they facilitate the perception of information rather than complicate it?

• Figures

Are tables and figures the right choice for the task? Can the results be illustrated differently?

Do the figures and graphs demonstrate statistical significance of important results?

Is it necessary to amend illustrations for a more accurate visual presentation of study results?

Do captions to figures and graphs help understand the information without referring to the manuscript itself?

• A conflict of interest disclosure

Are funding and conflict of interest disclosed clearly?

2.12. Based on the results of peer review, the reviewer gives his general conclusion (each decision of the reviewer shall be justified):

– the manuscript is recommended for publication as is;

– the manuscript is recommended for publication after minor corrections; in this case the authors are asked to revise the paper within 5–7 days;

– the decision on publication shall be reconsidered after revision (the acceptance of the manuscript will depend on the amendments made); the authors will be asked to resubmit the revised manuscript at an appropriate time, and the corrected version will be returned to the reviewer for further comments;

– the article requires additional review by another peer reviewer;

– the manuscript may not be published in the journal (it has serious flaws and/or does not make a significant original contribution) – the authors are not invited to resubmit the manuscript.

2.13. All reviews are certified in accordance with the procedure established by the institution the reviewer is affiliated to.

2.14. If the reviewer has recommended any improvements, the editorial team would suggest the author either to implement or to reasonably dispute them (fully or partially).

2.15. Authors are kindly asked to limit the revision to two months from the date of sending an e-mail to the authors about the necessity of improvements.

If the authors fail to resubmit the manuscript within three months from receipt of the peer review report, the editorial board takes the manuscript off the register and notifies the authors accordingly.

The revised manuscript is sent for re-review. The reviewer may be asked to review the revised manuscript.

2.16. The author has the right to revise the manuscript or refuse to publish it in the journal; an appropriate written notification shall be sent to the editors.

2.17. The article can be sent for additional review to a biostatistician.

2.18. The editorial board reaches a final decision to reject a manuscript on the meeting in accordance with reviewers’ opinions, and duly notifies the authors by e-mail. The manuscript rejected by the decision of the editorial board is not accepted for re-consideration in its original form. A notice of refusal to publish with a reasoned justification for the refusal or a copy of the review is sent to the author by e-mail. Reviewers are informed about the status of the manuscripts they review and about the comments made by their colleagues.

2.19. If the manuscript is rejected, the editor-in-chief (or his deputy) must inform the author of the reasons for rejection or send a copy of the reviewer opinion on behalf of the editorial board.

2.20. Authors can appeal the rejection by sending an e-mail to the editors of the journal. The appeal must contain a detailed rationale, including step-by-step responses to reviewer and/or editor comments.

2.21. The manuscript rejected by the reviewer and the editorial board can be reviewed again only as a newly submitted manuscript after its substantial revision by the author.

2.22. If the author and reviewers meet insoluble contradictions regarding the manuscript, the editorial board has the right to send the manuscript for additional review. In conflict situations, the editor-in-chief makes a final decision at the meeting of the editorial board.

2.23. The editors make a decision on publication based on at least two reviews. A positive review report does not guarantee the acceptance, as the final decision in all cases lies with the editorial board based on the validity of the work and its compliance with the subject of the journal. By his authority, editor-in-chief (or deputy) rules final solution of every conflict.

2.24. Upon the decision to accept the manuscript for publication, the editors notify the authors of the scheduled date of publication.

2.25. Original reports on peer review of submitted manuscripts remain deposited for five years. The editorial board of the journal is also obliged to send copies of the reports to the Higher Attestation Commission under the Ministry of Science and Higher Education of the Russian Federation on request.

2.26. Some people believe that true scientific peer review begins only on the date a paper is published. In that spirit, the journal provides readers with the opportunity to submit comments, questions, or criticism about published articles in its official group on Vkontakte.

Last updated: June 8, 2022

Publishing Ethics

1. Preamble

1.1. The monthly scientific and practical journal Public Health and Life Environment – PH&LE strives to uphold high ethical and professional standards of publication.

1.2. The standards of expected ethical behavior presented below are mandatory for all parties involved in the review and publication of a scientific article: author(s), editor-in-chief, editorial board, editorial council, reviewers, and the publisher of the journal.

1.3. The editorial board, editorial council, editorial team, reviewers and the publisher of the journal follow the ethical principles accepted by the international scientific community, and bear responsibility for compliance of the articles published with all up-to-date recommendations.

1.4. In their activities, the editor-in-chief, editorial team, board and council, reviewers and the publisher of the journal are guided by the principles, requirements, and recommendations of:

• the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE);
• the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE);
• the World Association of Medical Editors (WAME);
• the Council of Science Editors (CSE), and take into account valuable experience of reputable international journals and publishers, including Elsevier.

1.5. These guidelines are consistent with the policy of the journal and are among the main components of peer review and publication of the journal.

2. Terms and Definitions

The author is an individual whose creative effort produced the manuscript.

The editor-in-chief is the person who heads the editorial office and makes the final decisions regarding the production and release of the journal, editorial policy, topics, correct selection of reviewers, their objective assessment, and the decision on each article.

The publishing house (publisher) is an enterprise that prepares, produces and releases printed materials.

The editorial office is a team of editors, a group of employees of the publishing house.

The editor of the journal is a specialist with the skills of editing scientific texts, with experience in any particular professional field.

The editorial board is a permanent consultative collegial body of a periodical, consisting of the editor-in-chief, editorial staff, and the executive secretary.

The editorial council is an advisory body at a publishing house or editorial office that helps determine publishing or editorial policy, thematic areas of publishing or editorial activity, develop plans, accept or reject the most complex and disputable papers.

A reviewer is the author of a review, a critic who carries out scientific expertise of copyright materials and whose actions must be impartial.

Peer review is an essential component of formal scholarly communication lying at the heart of the scientific method.

The publishing ethics is a system of norms of professional behavior in the relationship of authors, reviewers, editors, publishers and readers in the process of creating, distributing and using scientific publications.

3. Duties of the Editor-in-Chief, Editorial Board and Council

3.1. In their activities, the editor-in-chief, members of the editorial board and editorial council are responsible for the contents of the journal, which entails the need to follow the fundamental principles listed below.

3.2. Publication decision

The editor-in-chief (or his deputy) is responsible for the final decision on publication (except for advertising and information materials). The quality and credibility of the data described in the manuscript under consideration and its scientific significance always underlie the decision to publish. When deciding, the editor-in-chief may consult the members of the editorial board and reviewers.

The editor-in-chief is guided by the policies of the journal and is constrained by such legal requirements as shall then be in force regarding libel, copyright infringement and plagiarism.

The editor-in-chief and his deputies do not participate in decision-making on articles that they have written themselves, have been written by their family members or colleagues, or on those related to products or services in which the editor has an interest.

According to the policy of the journal, papers written by the editor-in-chief and his deputies, members of the editorial board and editorial council, executive secretary and other persons affiliated with the journal are considered as impartially as those prepared by third-party authors.

The procedure of external double blind review of papers prepared by the editor-in-chief/members of the editorial board and council is able to minimize any bias in the process of making a publication decision.

Decisions are made by other members of the editorial board, who have no conflict of interest with the author.

When submitting a manuscript for publication, the editor-in-chief and his deputies, members of the editorial board and council, as well as other persons affiliated with the journal, shall state the latter in the “Conflict of Interest” section on the title page.

If an undeclared conflict of interest is detected, the editors reserve the right to consider retraction of the published article in accordance with the policy of the journal.

3.3. Fair play

The editor-in-chief should evaluate manuscripts for their intellectual content, scientific rigor, originality, and relevance, without regard to race, gender, sexual orientation, religious belief, ethnic origin, citizenship, or political philosophy of the authors.

When appointing members of the editorial board and council, the editor-in-chief should take into account the need for adequate, inclusive, and diverse representation.

The editor-in-chief should not artificially increase the journal’s citation rates.

3.4. Confidentiality

The editor-in-chief, editorial staff and members of the editorial board of the journal Public Health and Life Environment – PH&LE should not disclose any information on the manuscript submitted to the journal to anybody, with the exception of authors, reviewers, potential reviewers and the publisher; they should strive to ensure that ethical standards and data collection practices are observed for research that involves human subjects (see Section 7 “Promoting Ethical Research”).

In exceptional cases, in agreement with the publisher, the editor-in-chief may share limited information with the editors-in-chief of other journals in order to investigate alleged unethical behavior.

3.5. Disclosure and conflicts of interest

3.5.1 Unpublished data disclosed in a submitted manuscript must not be used in the own research of the editor-in-chief and editorial board or transferred to third parties (without a written consent of the author). Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not used for personal advantage (see Section 8 “Conflict of Interest Policy”).

3.5.2 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.

3.6. Vigilance over published record

The editor-in-chief receiving a complaint about alleged unethical behavior (e.g., plagiarism) should inform the editorial team and provide appropriate convincing evidence in order to promote the prompt publication of a correction, retraction, expression of concern, or other note, as may be relevant.

3.7. Involvement and cooperation in investigations

The editor-in-chief, together with the publisher, should take reasonable responsive measures when ethical complaints have been presented concerning a submitted manuscript or published paper. When a conflict situation is identified, they must take all necessary actions to restore violated rights, and if errors are found, they should promote the publication of corrections or refutations.

4. Duties of Reviewers

4.1. Contribution to editorial decisions

Peer review assists the editor-in-chief in making editorial decisions and through the editorial communications with the authors may also assist them in improving the paper.

The 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.

4.2. Diligence and promptness

All reviewers must comply with the publishing ethics and identify cases of plagiarism and other unethical practices. In addition, it is the responsibility of the reviewers to provide constructive feedback to the authors of the articles and the editors of the journal.

Any selected reviewer who feels unqualified to review the research reported in a manuscript or knows that its prompt review will be impossible should notify the editor-in-chief and excuse himself from the review process.

4.3. Confidentiality

All manuscripts received for review must be treated as confidential documents. They must not be shown to or discussed with others except as authorized by the editor-in-chief.

4.4. Standard and objectivity 

Reviews should be conducted objectively. Personal criticism of the author is inappropriate. Referees should express their views clearly with supporting arguments.

4.5. Acknowledgement of sources

Reviewers should try to 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. Reviewers 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.

4.6. Disclosure and conflicts of interest

4.6.1. Unpublished materials disclosed in a submitted manuscript must not be used in a reviewer’s own research without a written consent of the author. Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not used for personal advantage (see Section 8 “Conflict of Interest Policy”).

4.6.2. The reviewer cannot be the author or co-author of the peer-reviewed manuscript, as well as scientific supervisors of applicants for a scientific degree and/or employees of the department the author is affiliated to.

5. Duties of Authors

5.1. Submission of an article to the journal implies that it contains novel scientific results obtained by the author (a group of authors) that have not been previously published elsewhere.

5.2. Authors should be aware that they are personally responsible for the content of the manuscript, which implies compliance with the following principles.

5.3. Requirements for manuscripts

Authors of original research articles should present an accurate account of the work performed as well as an objective discussion of its relevance and statistical significance. Underlying data should be represented accurately. A paper should contain sufficient detail and references to permit others to replicate the work.

Fraudulent or knowingly inaccurate statements constitute unethical behavior and are unacceptable.

Review and professional publication articles should also be accurate and objective; editorial opinions should be clearly identified as such.

5.4. 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.

5.5. Originality and plagiarism

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.

All manuscripts submitted to the journal are subject to mandatory verification through the ANTIPLAGIAT system. 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 behavior and is unacceptable. Such manuscripts are not accepted for publication. If plagiarism is suspected, an appropriate investigation will be carried out.

5.6. Multiple, redundant or concurrent publication

Submitting of a previously published article (partly or in full) or the same manuscript to more than one journal concurrently constitutes unethical publishing behavior and is unacceptable.

An author should not submit for consideration a previously published paper.

Publication of some kinds of articles (e.g., 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 bibliography must be cited in the secondary publication. Further detail on acceptable forms of secondary publication can be found in Recommendations for the Conduct, Reporting, Editing, and Publication of Scholarly Work in Medical Journals developed by the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors.

5.7. 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.

5.8. Authorship of the paper

In accordance with ICMJE recommendations, authorship should be limited to those who have made a significant contribution to the conception, design, execution, or interpretation of the reported study, have taken an active part in writing the manuscript or revising it, participated in the final approval of the article in print, and agree to bear the responsibility for the content of the article.

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.

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.

In exceptional cases, the list of authors can be amended after submission of the manuscript.

5.9. Hazards and human or animal subjects

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.

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 (it is important to specify the number of the document, the date of its signing and the official name of the committee).

The privacy rights of human subjects must always be observed. Authors should include a statement in the manuscript that a written informed consent was obtained (and archived) for experimentation with human subjects and publication of research data (see Section 7 “Promoting Ethical Research”).

5.10. Disclosure and conflicts of interest

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.

Examples of potential conflicts of interest which should be disclosed include connections and/or personal interest that could potentially bias study results, their interpretation and objective perception, such as employment, consultancies, stock ownership, honoraria, paid expert testimony, patent applications/registrations, and grants or other funding as well as non-financial interests (e.g., personal or professional relationships, acquaintances, etc.).

Potential conflicts of interest should be disclosed at the earliest possible stage (see Section 8 “Conflict of Interest Policy”).

5.11. Fundamental errors in published articles

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 the 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 errors or to prove the correctness of the information to the editorial board.

6. Duties of the Publisher

6.1. The publisher should follow policies and procedures that support the editor-in-chief (deputy editor-in-chief), reviewers and authors in performing their ethical duties under these guidelines. The publisher should ensure that the potential for advertising or reprint revenue has no impact or influence on editorial decisions.

6.2. The publisher should promote scientific communication; support the editor-in-chief in the review of complaints raised concerning ethical issues and help communications with other journals and/or publishers where this is useful to editors.

6.3. The publisher should contribute to developing codes of practice and inculcating industry standards for best practice on ethical matters, errors and retractions.

6.4. The publisher should provide appropriate specialized legal review and consultation, if needed.

7. Promoting Ethical Research

7.1. Human subject research

If authors conduct research involving human subjects or use other personal information about a patient, they must obtain their written consent to participate in the study and report this in the manuscript.

Written consent must be kept by the author and shall be submitted to the editorial office upon request. Patients’ personal data should not be disclosed in the article; if the patient's identification features are changed to protect his personal data, the authors must guarantee that these changes do not distort the scientific data presented in the article.

Individuals may not be included in the study unless they have given voluntary informed consent, and they must be advised of their right to refuse to participate in the study or withdraw their consent at any time without any adverse consequences to themselves.

Research participants should be informed about the aims, methods, sources of funding, any possible conflicts of interest, affiliation with any organizations, expected benefits and potential risks, inconvenience that may arise from participation in the study, conditions applicable after the end of the study, general conclusions and results of the study, as well as any other significant aspects of the research.

If the potential research subject is a person incapable of giving informed consent (e.g., a child or a mentally disabled person), the researcher should obtain the informed consent of his legal representative. If this is not possible, then the data should be recorded in the study design, and the conduct of such a study should be approved by the ethics committee.

Upon submission, an article reporting the results of medical research involving human subjects must be accompanied by a statement that the ethics committee has authorized the research and that the research complies with the following recognized standards:

– WMA Declaration of Helsinki – Ethical Principles for Medical Research Involving Human Subjects,

– European Medicines Agency Guidelines for Good Clinical Practice.

Appropriate approvals, licenses and registrations must be obtained prior to the commencement of studies and this information must be included in the study report.

7.2. Animal research

The editors of the journal encourage authors not to experiment on animals. If this is not possible, authors must take ethical considerations to prevent undue animal suffering. When describing animal experiments, authors should indicate whether they acted in accordance with local and national standards for the use and handling of laboratory animals.

8. Conflict of Interest Policy

8.1. A conflict of interest is a condition in which people have conflicting or competing interests that can influence an editorial decision to publish a manuscript.

A conflict of interest implies the presence of any connections and/or personal interest to individuals or organizations that can potentially bias study results, their interpretation and objective perception by the reader in an unduly biased way.

Conflicts of interest can be potential or perceived, as well as real ones. Impartiality may be affected by personal, political, financial, scientific or religious factors.

The most obvious conflicts are, but not limited to:

– financial relations and cooperation with some organizations or institutions (e.g., employment, stock ownership, grants, patents; honoraria, consultancies, paid expert testimony, membership, private property);

– non-financial interests (e.g., past or current personal or professional relationships, acquaintances, family ties, rivalries, career advancement, personal prejudices, etc.).

Potential conflicts of interest should be disclosed at the earliest possible stage.

8.2. All participants involved in the process of reviewing and publishing a scientific article, not only authors, but also reviewers, editors and members of the editorial board, must take into account potential conflicts of  interest and disclose all connections and activities, which may be considered as their potential sources.

8.3. Having conflicts of interest is not in itself unethical, and some of them are unavoidable.

8.4. When submitting a manuscript to the journal PH&LE, each author is required to disclose information about a real or potential conflict of interest (the impact of a conflict of interest on the results and conclusions presented in the work), to include information about it in the appropriate section of the paper, and to fill in a conflict of interest disclosure form based on the ICMJE Recommendations for the Conduct, Reporting, Editing, and Publication of Scholarly Work in Medical Journals (Forms - RUS, ENG).

If there is no conflict of interest, the author should also state, e.g. “The author(s) declares that there is no conflict of interest.”

The authors shall indicate the sources of funding in the relevant section of the article, describe the role of sponsors, if any, e.g. “This work was supported by…” or “Author A received research grants from Company A. Author B received an honorarium from Company X and owns shares in Company Y. Author C participated as a consultant and expert witness in Company Z. Author D is the inventor of patent X.”

If there is no role for sponsors, the authors should state: “Sponsors were not involved in the design of the study, data collection, analysis and interpretation, preparation of the article and a decision to publish.”

Intentional concealment of information about relationships or activities that are indicated in the disclosure form of a conflict of interest is a form of unethical behavior that can undermine credibility of the author, the journal and science as a whole.

If the editors reveal the presence of a conflict of interest that was not declared upon submission, the manuscript may be rejected.

If hidden competing financial or personal interests are identified after publication, the editors of the journal act in accordance with the COPE recommendations of (the article may be corrected or retracted, if necessary).

The editors reserve the right not to publish the manuscript if the conflict of interest declared by the author jeopardizes impartiality and trustworthiness of the study evaluation.

Information about conflicts of interest and funding sources is published in the relevant sections of the full text of the article.

This policy applies to all types of articles published in the journal Public Health and Life Environment, is posted in the public domain for all users of its website.

Last updated: June 10, 2022

Founder

• Federal Center for Hygiene and Epidemiology, Federal Budgetary Health Institution of the Federal Service for Surveillance on Consumer Rights Protection and Human Wellbeing (Rospotrebnadzor), Moscow, Russian Federation

Last updated: May 11, 2022

Author Fees

Publication in the journal Public Health and Life Environment – PH&LE is free of charge for all authors.

Last updated: May 11, 2022

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.

Last updated: May 11, 2022

Plagiarism Detection

The journal Public Health and Life Environment uses native Russian-language plagiarism detection software Antiplagiat to screen the submissions (excluding bibliography). The purpose of such screening is to assess the legitimacy and correctness of borrowings and to establish the volume of the original text.

The editorial board is not responsible for the calculation procedure incorporated in the software and evaluates only the results obtained.

If plagiarism is identified, the COPE guidelines on plagiarism will be followed (Flowchart A, Flowchart B).

Last updated: June 17, 2022

Preprint and Postprint Policy

The editorial board of the journal Public Health and Life Environment (PH&LE) allows authors to post the manuscript as a preprint before submission for review and to archive independently their articles in disciplinary and institutional repositories.

Preprints

The editorial board of PH&LE encourages uploading preprints anywhere anytime. The Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) defines a preprint as “a scholarly manuscript posted by the author(s) in an openly accessible platform, usually before or in parallel with the peer review process.” 

A preprint publication shall not be considered duplicate publication nor shall it influence the editor's decision to publish it in PH&LE

The author must notify the editorial board of PH&LE about the posted preprint at submission of the manuscript for review, furnishing a link to the preprint with its DOI identifier and the dissemination terms and conditions.

It is the author’s responsibility to add a link to the published manuscript in the preprint record. The link must contain the DOI and the URL of the article published on the journal’s website. The original preprint should not be modified based on the reviewer’s and editor’s comments. The preprint should not be replaced with the text of the published article.

Do not delete the preprint text.

Manuscripts Accepted for Publication

The editorial board of PH&LE allows manuscripts that have been reviewed and are accepted for publication to be archived independently.

This version of the manuscript may be disseminated through:

• personal website or blog;
• a preprint server;
• institutional repository (for internal use);
• disciplinary (theme) repository;
• direct interactions (in closed groups) with colleagues, teachers or students by providing this version of the manuscript for personal use.

The text of the manuscript should contain the author’s clarifications about its status and information about the planned publication.

Example: The ARTICLE TITLE has been reviewed, accepted for publication, and will be published in 2022;30(…) of PH&LE.

Once the final version of the manuscript is published, it is the author’s responsibility to add the link to the published article to the publication record. The posted text should not be modified based on the reviewer’s and editor’s comments. Do not replace the text of the posted manuscript.

Do not delete the text of the posted manuscript.

Final Versions of Manuscripts

The editorial board of PH&LE allows manuscripts that have been peer-reviewed, accepted for publication, edited and ready for publication (proofread and typeset) to be archived independently.

 This version of the manuscript may be disseminated through:

• personal website or blog;
• institutional repository (for internal use);
• disciplinary (theme) repository;
• direct interactions (in closed groups) with colleagues, teachers or students by providing this version of the manuscript for personal use.

Once the final version of the manuscript is published, it is the author’s responsibility to add a link to the published article to the publication record. The posted text should not be modified based on the reviewer’s and editor’s comments. Do not replace the text of the posted manuscript.

Do not delete the text of the posted manuscript.

For more information about Creative Commons licenses, see the website or FAQ.

Last updated: May 11, 2022

Advertising Policy

The Russian journal Public Health and Life Environment – PH&LE derives income from advertising and reprints, creating a potential conflict of interest.

The editorial policy of the journal is based on Recommendations on Publication Ethics Policies for Medical Journals of the World Association of Medical Editors (WAME) and provisions of the Russian Federal Law on Advertising No. 38-FZ of March 13, 2006.

All participants in the editorial and publishing process are familiar with this policy and adhere to its requirements.

Editorial decisions are always based on scientific rigor and statistical significance of the work, and commercial interests cannot in any way influence the content or the decision to publish.

The decision to publish an advertisement should be made only by the editors of the journal. Advertisers and donors do not influence the editor’s decisions, regardless of the terms of advertising or other agreements.

Reprinted articles must be published as they originally appeared in the journal (including subsequent corrections); that is, there is no alterations or revisions of articles for a supplement or reprint other than corrections.

The content of special supplementary issues (if any) should be determined only by the usual editorial process and not be influenced in any way by the funding source or advertise.

General requirements for advertising materials:

• the volume of advertising materials may not exceed 40 % of the total volume of the journal (in fact, 2–5 %);
• all advertisements must clearly identify the advertiser and the product or service being offered. In the case of drug advertisements, the full generic name of each active ingredient should appear;
• ads should have a different appearance from editorial material so there is no confusion between the two;
• commercial advertisements should not be placed adjacent to any editorial matter that discusses the product being advertised, nor adjacent to any article reporting research on the advertised product, nor should they refer to an article in the same issue in which they appear;
• the editorial board of the journal neither accepts for consideration nor publishes advertising articles, neither on a paid nor free of charge basis;
• advertisements may not be deceptive or misleading;
• exaggerated or extravagantly worded copy is not allowed;
• advertisements should not contain incorrect comparisons of the advertised product with goods in circulation that are produced by other manufacturers or sold by other sellers;
• advertisements should not appear to be indecent or offensive and should not contain negative content of a personal, racial, ethnic, sexual orientation, or religious character; they should not defame the honor, dignity or business reputation of a person, including a competitor, induce to commit illegal acts, call for violence or cruelty, etc.;
• products or services being advertised should be germane to the practice of medicine, medical education, or health care delivery;
• the journal will not carry advertisements for products proven to be seriously harmful to health;
• advertisers are solely responsible for the information contained in the advertisement. False advertising is not allowed;
• an advertisement published in the journal does not mean promotion or endorsement of the advertised product, company or service by the editors;
• the advertiser agrees to indemnify the publisher for any losses that the publisher may incur due to the placement of advertising information, including claims or suits for defamation, breach of confidentiality, copyright infringement or plagiarism; and
• the editors reserve the right to reject any advertising material that damages reputation of the publisher or is not compliant with the content of the journal.

For more information about ad placement please contact specialists of the Educational and Publishing Department, tel.: +7(495)633-18-17, e-mail: print_zakaz@fcgie.ru.

Last updated: May 11, 2022

CrossMark Policy

CrossMark is a multi-publisher initiative from Crossref, which provides a standard way for readers to locate the authoritative version of an article or other published content. By applying the CrossMark logo, the journal is committing to maintaining the content it publishes and to alerting readers to changes if and when they occur.

Clicking the CrossMark logo on a document will tell you its current status and may also give you additional publication-record information about the document.

Last updated: May 11, 2022

Data Sharing Policy

Authors are encouraged to make the research data that support their publications available but are not required to do so. The decision to publish will not be affected by whether or not authors share their research data.

Definition of Research Data

Research data include any recorded factual materials that are used to produce the results in digital and non-digital form. They include tabular data, code, images, audio, documents, video, maps, raw and/or processed data. This policy applies to the research data that would be required to verify the results of research reported in articles published in the journal Public Health and Life Environment. Research data include data produced by the authors (“primary data”) and data from other sources that are analyzed by authors in their study (“secondary data”).

Definition of Exceptions

This policy does not apply to research data that are not required to confirm the validity of the results stated in published articles.

The data that are not subject to public disclosure may be delivered as follows: deposited in science data repositories with limited access or preliminary anonymized. An author can also publicly deliver metadata only and/or description of the method of access to the data under requests from other scholars.

Data Repositories

The preferred mechanism for sharing research data is via data repositories. Please visit https://repositoryfinder.datacite.org/ for help on finding research data repositories.

Data Citation

The Editorial Board of the Journal Public Health and Life Environment welcomes access to data under Creative Commons Licenses. The Editorial Board of the Journal Public Health and Life Environment does not insist on the obligatory use of Creative Commons if data are kept in the repositories of the third party. The Publisher of the Journal Public Health and Life Environment does not assert any copyrights for the data submitted by the author together with the article. 

Questions regarding this policy shall be sent to Nataliya A. Gorbacheva, Executive Secretary of the Journal Public Health and Life Environment, e-mail: zniso@fcgie.ru.

Last updated: May 11, 2022