Aims and Scope

The journal is intended for practitioners and specialists involved in disability issues.

It covers the following topics: theoretical and practical aspects of prevention and prevalence of disability; medical and social evaluation; medical, vocational, and social rehabilitation of people with disabilities; legal, regulatory, and economic issues relating to disability; the training of, and refresher courses for, specialists from institutions for medical and social evaluation; and rehabilitation of people with disabilities.

The journal disseminates information on the current state and future of Russia’s social policy for people with disabilities, the practices of Russian regional and territorial agencies working in the field of social protection, and modern approaches to solving the problems of disabled people in other countries. Special attention is devoted to original research focused on new promising methods of diagnosis and treatment of disabling conditions.

 

Sections

Original study

Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed

Expertise and rehabilitation

Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed

Review

Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed

Current problems of medical and social expertise

Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed
 

Peer Review Process

Peer-Review Policy

All articles submitted to the editorial office of a journal shall be reviewed in the manner set forth below.
1. The editorial staff shall establish whether the submission is within the scope of the journal and meets the format criteria. The editorial staff shall then forward it either to the Editor-in-Chief, to the Deputy Editor-in-Chief or to the Executive Editor, who shall decide whether the research results described in the article are valid and important. If the results are deemed valid and important, reviewers shall be determined. All articles shall be reviewed by the Editorial Board and the Editorial Council, as well as by independent reviewers. Independent reviewers must be leading experts in the field and have some publications (not older than three years) on the subject covered in the submitted article. Articles submitted by the Editor-in-Chief shall be reviewed by independent reviewers.
2. The review process is confidential. The editorial staff shall send the author/s copies of the reviews or a rejection letter. The editorial staff shall also send copies of the reviews to the Ministry of Education and Science of the Russian Federation, upon a request from the Ministry.
3. The review process requires 2 months. The editorial staff controls the length of the review process; in some circumstances (upon a reviewer’s request), more time may be given to complete the review.
4. To help produce a comprehensive and unbiased review of an article, Editorial Team has developed Instructions for Reviewers that contain a list of criteria to be assessed. Based on the assessment of the criteria, reviewers shall be asked to determine the status of the article in one of the following ways: (a) accept, (b) accept with revision as suggested by the reviewer, (c) re-review required, or (d) reject.
5. A review suggesting corrections and revisions to the submitted article shall be forwarded by the editorial staff to the author, who will be requested either to prepare a revised version of the article based on the recommendations made by the reviewer or to prove that such corrections and/or revisions are not needed. A revised article shall be sent to the reviewers to be re-reviewed.
6. In cases of irreconcilable differences between the author and reviewer, the Editorial Board reserves the right to send the article to another reviewer. Should a conflict arise, the article shall be sent to a member of the Editorial Board or Editorial Council. The final decision shall rest with the Editor-in-Chief.
7. Authors may be requested to list names of potential reviewers when submitting a publication.
8. Submitted articles may be sent to an expert in medical statistics for an additional review.
9. The author shall be notified of a negative review by email.
10. A positive review does not obligate the journal to publish the submitted article. The final decision shall be made by the Editorial Board based on whether the article presents valid data and is in scope for the journal.
11. Authors may appeal a rejection of their article by the editors. Appeal procedures are described at:
12. Originals of the reviews shall be stored at the editorial office for 5 years.

 

Publication Frequency

Frequency: 4 issues per year

 

Author Self-Archiving

This journal does not permit authors to post items submitted to the journal on personal websites or institutional repositories.

 

Issue Purchase

Readers without a subscription may still purchase individual issues. The following payment options and fees are available.

Access for an Issue: 35.00 (USD)

You can purchase the access for all articles published in one issue. Access to articles will be provide for an unlimited time.

Access to issue allows you to read, download and print full text (PDF and HTML) of all articles, but does not allow to distribute, copy or reproduce articles materials until the end of the embargo period (3 years) since the publication of the article).

 

Article Purchase

Readers without a subscription may still purchase individual articles. The following payment options and fees are available.

Access for an Article: 5.00 (USD)

You can purchase the access for the article to read, download and print its fulltext (PDF, HTML). Access to article will be provide for an unlimited time.

Purchased access does not allow to distribute, copy or reproduce article's materials until the end of the embargo period (3 years) since the publication of the article).

 

Editorial Board

Editorial Board:

Editor-in-Chief
Sergey N. Puzin – MD, PhD, Prof., Academician of the Russian Academy of Sciences, Head of the Department of Geriatrics and Medical and Social Evaluation, Russian Medical Academy of Postgraduate Education (Moscow, Russia)

Deputy Editor-in-Chief
Svetlana B. Malichenko – MD, PhD, Prof., Head of the Department of Clinical and Social Geriatrics, Peoples’ Friendship University of Russia (Moscow, Russia)

Malvina A. Rychkova – MD, PhD, Prof., Deputy Director, Research and Education Center of the Central Clinical Hospital with Polyclinic of the Presidential Administration of the Russian Federation (Moscow, Russia)

Executive Secretary
Marina A. Shurgaya – MD, PhD, Associate Prof., Department of Geriatrics and Medical and Social Evaluation, Russian Medical Academy of Postgraduate Education (Moscow, Russia)
(ORCID)

Scientific Editor
Elena A. Mashchenko – MD, PhD, Associate Prof., Department of Clinical and Social Geriatrics of Peoples’ Friendship University of Russia (Moscow, Russia)
(ORCID)

Aleksandr S. Ametov – MD, PhD, Prof., Head of the Department of Endocrinology and Diabetology, Russian Medical Academy of Postgraduate Education (Moscow, Russia)
(ORCID)

Evgeny E. Achkasov – MD, PhD, Associate Prof., Head of the Department of Physiotherapy and Sports Medicine, Medical Faculty, I.M. Sechenov First Moscow State Medical University (Moscow, Russia)
(ORCID)

Igor G. Bakulin – MD, PhD, Prof., Head of the Department of Hepatology, Central Research Institute of Gastroenterology of the Moscow Health Department (Moscow, Russia)
(ORCID)

Yuri P. Boyko – MD, PhD, Prof., Head of the Department, Diplomatic Academy of the Russian Foreign Ministry (Moscow, Russia)

Igor G. Gal’ – MD, PhD, Chief Physician, City Clinical Hospital №68 of the Moscow Health Department (Moscow, Russia)

Nikolai G. Goncharov – MD, PhD, Prof., Head of the Federal Agency of Scientific Organizations (Moscow, Russia)

Lidia P. Grishina – MD, PhD, Prof., Head of the Department of Multifactor Analysis of the Causes of Disability Formation, Scientific and Methodical Center of the Federal Bureau of Medical and Social Expertise of the Ministry of Labor and Social Protection (Moscow, Russia)

Sergei V. Darmodehin – PhD, Prof., Academician of the Russian Academy of Education, Acting Director, Institute of Family and Education of the Russian Academy of Education (Moscow, Russia)
(ORCID)

Mikhail A. Dymochka – MD, PhD, Head of (and Chief Federal Expert in the Field of Medical and Social Evaluation at) the Federal Bureau of Medical and Social Expertise of the Ministry of Labor and Social Protection (Moscow, Russia)
(ORCID)

Mikhail Z. Kaplan – MD, PhD, Prof., CEO of “Medius C” (Moscow, Russia)
(ORCID)

Galina P. Kindras – MD, PhD, Prof., Chief Researcher, Scientific and Methodical Center of the Federal Bureau of Medical and Social Expertise of the Ministry of Labor and Social Protection (Moscow, Russia)

Vladimir A. Klevno – MD, PhD, Prof., Head of the Moscow Region Bureau of Forensic Medicine (Moscow, Russia)

Gennady P. Kotel’nikov – MD, PhD, Prof., Academician of the Russian Academy of Sciences, Rector, Samara State Medical University (Samara, Russia)
(ORCID)

Yuriy D. Krivoruchko – MD, PhD, Head of the Group of Additional Professional Education, Federal Medical Research Center of Psychiatry and Narcology (Moscow, Russia)

Aleksandr V. Martynenko – MD, PhD, Prof., Corresponding Member of the Russian Academy of Education, Head of the Department of Social Medicine and Social Work, Moscow State University of Medicine and Dentistry named after A.I. Evdokimov (Moscow, Russia)

Vella V. Polyanichko – PhD, Associate Prof., Head of the Section of Postgraduate Education, Federal Bureau for Medical and Social Expertise of the Ministry of Labor and Social Protection (Moscow, Russia)
(ORCID)

Vladimir N. Potapov – MD, PhD, Prof., Department of Geriatrics and Medical and Social Evaluation, Russian Medical Academy of Postgraduate Education (Moscow, Russia)

Gregory V. Rodoman – MD, PhD, Prof., Chief Physician, City Clinical Hospital №24 of the Moscow Health Department (Moscow, Russia)

Constantine A. Sarkisov – MD, PhD, Prof., Head of the Department of Medical Examination, Russian Medical Academy of Postgraduate Education (Moscow, Russia)
(ORCID)

Bela A. Syrnikova – MD, PhD, Prof., Head of the Practical Scientific Rehabilitation Center for Persons with Disabilities of the Moscow Department of Social Protection (Moscow, Russia)
(ORCID)

Dmitry F. Khritinin – MD, PhD, Prof., Corresponding Member of the Russian Academy of Sciences, Department of Psychiatry and Narcology, I.M. Sechenov First Moscow State Medical University (Moscow, Russia)
(ORCID)

Sevda A. Chandirli – MD, PhD, Assistant, Department of Geriatrics and Medical and Social Evaluation, Russian Medical Academy of Postgraduate Education, Moscow, Russia
(ORCID)

Larisa N. Chikinova – MD, PhD, Prof., Head of the Training Center, Federal Bureau of Medical and Social Expertise of the Ministry of Labor and Social Protection (Moscow, Russia)

Alexander M. Chukhraev – MD, PhD, Prof., Head of S.N. Fyodorov Eye Microsurgery State Institution of the Ministry of Health of the Russian Federation (Moscow, Russia)
(ORCID)

Editorial Council:

Olga T. Bogova – MD, PhD, Prof., Department of Geriatrics and Medical and Social Evaluation, Russian Medical Academy of Postgraduate Education (Moscow, Russia)

Georgy V. Dzhavrishvili – MD, PhD, Prof., Head of the Dzhavrishvili Eye Microsurgery Clinic (Oftalmidzh) (Tbilisi, Georgia)

Yuri I. Zakharchenko – MD, PhD, Head-Chief Expert on Medical-Social Examination, Krasnodar Region Main Bureau of Medical and Social Expertise of the Ministry of Labor and Social Protection (Krasnodar, Russia)

Keram T. Kerimov – MD, PhD, Prof., Scientific Director, Head of the Department, Cataract Surgery Clinic, Zarifa Aliyeva National Ophthalmology Center (Baku, Azerbaijan)

Mikhail V. Korobov – MD, PhD, Prof., Head of Department of Health Organization, Medical and Social Expertise and Rehabilitation, Saint Petersburg Institute for Postgraduate Training of Medical Experts of the Ministry of Labor and Social Protection (Saint Petersburg, Russia)

Sergey M. Kroshnin – MD, PhD, Prof., Head of the State Autonomous Healthcare Institution Clinical Center for Restorative Medicine and Rehabilitation (Moscow, Russia)

Galina V. Lapshina – Honored Doctor of the Russian Federation, Head-Chief Expert on Medical-Social Examination in Moscow, Head Bureau of Medical-Social Examination in Moscow of the Ministry of Labor and Social Protection (Moscow, Russia)

Vitaly V. Linnik – MD, PhD, Prof., Vice-Chairman, Social Insurance Fund of the Russian Federation (Moscow, Russia)

Servir S. Memetov – MD, PhD, Associate Prof., Deputy Director, Hospital for the Clinical Expert Work, Rostov Region Hospital for War Veterans (Rostov-on-Don, Russia)

Arseny A. Modestov – MD, PhD, Prof., Head of the Laboratory of Medical Care for Children’s Population, Scientific Center for Children’s Health (Moscow, Russia)

Aleksandr N. Razumov – MD, PhD, Prof., Academician of the Russian Academy of Sciences, Head of the Moscow Scientific and Practical Center for Medical Rehabilitation, Rehabilitation and Sports Medicine, Moscow Department of Health (Moscow, Russia)

Dzhalaludin G. Saidbegov – MD, PhD, Prof., Head of the Neurological Semiotics and Rehabilitation Course, Medical Faculty, Sapienza University of Rome (Rome, Italy)

Lyudmila A. Tarasova – MD, PhD, Prof., Head of the Clinical Hospital Scientific and Educational Center, Presidential Administration of the Russian Federation (Moscow, Russia)

Aleksandr D. Tsaregorodcev – MD, PhD, Prof., Advisor, Pirogov Russian National Research Medical University (Moscow, Russia)

Igor V. Shvedovchenko – MD, PhD, Prof., Head of the Saint Petersburg Scientific and Practical Center for Medical and Social Expertise, Prosthetics and Rehabilitation named after G.A. Albrecht (Saint Petersburg, Russia)

 

Indexation

 

Publication ethics Statement

Responsibilities of the Editorial Board

The Editorial Board of the journal complies with the ethical standards approved by the international scientific community. The Editorial Board uses the Recommendations for the Conduct, Reporting, Editing and Publication of Scholarly Work in Medical Journals of the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors and recommendations of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).

Editorial decision-making

The Editorial Board is responsible for making decisions which of the submitted manuscripts will be accepted for publication. The Editorial Board makes the decision regarding a publication based on the journal’s policy, taking into account the current authors’ rights legislation and avoiding defamation and plagiarism. The editorial evaluation of the manuscript is independent of race, ethnicity and gender, religion, citizenship, or political views of the authors. Decision whether to publish an article or not is based exclusively on its scientific relevance, originality, clarity of presentation, and correspondence of the topic to journal’s specialization.

Confidentiality

All the Editorial Board members are responsible for disclosing any information about the submitted manuscript to individuals other than authors, peer reviewers, potential peer reviewers, or publishers.

Conflict of interest

The unpublished materials disclosed in the submitted manuscript cannot be used by the Editorial Board members for their own research without written permission from the authors.

Plagiarism, data falsification, and error correction

In case of an ethical complaint or a conflict situation regarding the manuscript or the published article, the Editorial Board should undertake reasonable countermeasures, together with the publisher, to restore the violated rights. If errors are revealed, the Editorial Board should assist in publishing corrections or refutations. Each reported case of unethical behavior will be considered, even if submitted several years after the article had been published.

Reviewer responsibilities

Contribution to editorial decision-making

The review process is aimed at facilitating the Editorial Board in editorial decision-making and may also help the author to improve the manuscript.

Timeliness (promptness)

If a reviewer selected by the Editorial Board does not feel competent for reviewing the manuscript or feels that it is not possible to meet the deadline of the review, he/she should promptly notify the Editorial Board and decline to perform the review.

Confidentiality

Any material under review should be regarded as confidential. The material should not be shared or discussed with anyone outside the review process unless approved by the editor.

Objectivity standards

Reviewing should be objective. Subjective critique of the author is not allowed. Reviewer’s opinion should be stated clearly and supported by arguments.

Confirmation of the resources

The reviewer is responsible for determining the cases when the relevant publications have not been cited in the manuscript or listed in the References section. Furthermore, the reviewer should determine whether all the statements, conclusions, and ideas borrowed from other publications had the corresponding references. If the reviewer detects that the manuscript under review significantly coincides with or is similar to another known publication, he/she should notify the Editorial Board.

Disclosure of information and conflict of interest

Non-disclosable information and ideas must be regarded as confidential and cannot be used for one’s personal advantage. Experts should not review manuscripts if they have any possible conflict of interest due to competitive, collaborative, or other relationships with the manuscript authors, as well as companies or institutions related to the manuscript.

Author responsibilities

Credibility and study standards

If the manuscript is based on an original study, the authors must submit the reliable results of their work and an objective discussion of significance of the study. The manuscript should contain all the key data, accurate description of the study details and references in order to ensure reproducibility of the results. Data falsification or the intentionally invalid statements in the manuscript are regarded as unethical and are inappropriate.

Data availability

The Editorial Board can request the authors to submit raw data in addition to the manuscript. The author must be ready to provide public access to these data, provided that public access to the data violates neither confidentiality of the research participants nor rights of an individual or a company owning these data.

Originality, plagiarism, and citing the sources

Authors must submit only original studies. Authors must properly and accurately acknowledge the work of others. Publications that had significantly contributed to preparing the study or underlied its design should also be acknowledged.

Multiple, duplicate, or competing publications

In general, materials describing the contents of the same study should not be published in more than one journal. Submitting the manuscript to more than one journal is considered unethical and inappropriate. Copyrighted materials that have already been published cannot be submitted to the journal. Furthermore, materials under consideration by the Editorial Board must not be submitted to be published elsewhere. When submitting an article, the author must inform the editor about all the previous presentations of the study that can be regarded as a duplicate publication. The author must notify the editor if the manuscript contains the information published by the author in previous reports or submitted for publication elsewhere. In this case, the new article should contain references to the previously published material.

Authorship criteria

Authorship is limited to the individuals that have made a significant contribution to 1) conception and design of the study; data acquisition and interpretation; 2) preparing the first draft of the article or editing the article to improve its quality; and 3) final approval of the manuscript for publication. Each author must participate in the study to an extent sufficient to take public responsibility for the corresponding part of the content of his/her article. Involvement consisting in funding or selecting material for the article is not sufficient reason for inclusion in the list of authors. General guidance of the research group is not sufficient for including in the list of authors.

All the authors must approve the final manuscript and its submission to the journal for publication.

Conflict of interest

When submitting an article to the journal, all authors must sign the form disclosing financial or any other substantive conflict of interest that can be considered to have influenced the study results or their interpretation. All funding sources of the submitted studies must be specified.

Involvement in the peer review process

After the peer review process, the article can be sent to the author for improvement. Authors should be actively involved in the review process: promptly answer the questions and, if necessary, correct the manuscript in accordance with the reviewer’s comments.

 

Appeal procedure

Authors have a right to appeal editorial decisions to adopt or reject articles.

1. In case of disagreement with the editorial decision of acceptance or rejection of the article, the author refers to the relevant journal editors in writing indicating the reasons for treatment

2. Committee on Conflict Resolution of the respective journal considers the appeal

3. Change in editorial decisions regarding an article possible in cases where: – Author gave more actual results, which are not taken into account during the primary reviewing of the article – Author provided with information about conflict of interest that was not provided in the primary reviewing of this article – Author expresses his concern about biased reviews

4. If there are sufficient grounds the Committee on Conflict Resolution of the relevant journal makes a proposal for editorial board to change or to uphold the initial decision regarding the publication of the article

5. If necessary, editors may involve additional reviewer for final decision

6. Editorial board of the journal makes a decision regarding acceptance or rejection on the basis of reviewing of the initial decision

7. Editorial decision following its review of the initial decision is final and is not subject to appeal.

 

Article Retraction

Retraction of a published article is a measure of the last resort and may occur under circumstances such as:

– infringements of law and defamation;

– more than 20% of direct quotes or paraphrased material;

– false or inaccurate data that, if acted upon, would pose a serious health risk;

– a vague and incomplete description of conflicts of interests.

Article Retraction Procedure

1. Retraction of an article shall be initiated upon a written request by authors, readers, reviewers, editors, or publishers that shall be submitted to the journal in which the article was published.

2. The journal’s Commission on Conflict Resolution shall examine the request.

3. The Commission on Conflict Resolution shall decide to retract the article if there is sufficient evidence to do so.

4. Upon consideration of the request, the Commission on Conflict Resolution shall notify the person who initiated article removal of its decision.

5. Should the Commission decide to retract the article, this shall be agreed on with the authors, and the journal shall publish a retraction statement that shall include the article’s metadata.

6. If the journal’s articles are indexed in databases, the journal shall notify the databases that the article has been retracted and should not be cited, identifying the reasons for the retraction.

 

Appeal procedure

Authors have a right to appeal editorial decisions to adopt or reject articles.

1. In case of disagreement with the editorial decision of acceptance or rejection of the article, the author refers to the relevant journal editors in writing indicating the reasons for treatment

2. Committee on Conflict Resolution of the respective journal considers the appeal

3. Change in editorial decisions regarding an article possible in cases where: – Author gave more actual results, which are not taken into account during the primary reviewing of the article – Author provided with information about conflict of interest that was not provided in the primary reviewing of this article – Author expresses his concern about biased reviews

4. If there are sufficient grounds the Committee on Conflict Resolution of the relevant journal makes a proposal for editorial board to change or to uphold the initial decision regarding the publication of the article

5. If necessary, editors may involve additional reviewer for final decision

6. Editorial board of the journal makes a decision regarding acceptance or rejection on the basis of reviewing of the initial decision

7. Editorial decision following its review of the initial decision is final and is not subject to appeal

 

Article Retraction

Retraction of a published article is a measure of the last resort and may occur under circumstances such as:

– infringements of law and defamation;

– more than 20% of direct quotes or paraphrased material;

– false or inaccurate data that, if acted upon, would pose a serious health risk;

– a vague and incomplete description of conflicts of interests.

Article Retraction Procedure

1. Retraction of an article shall be initiated upon a written request by authors, readers, reviewers, editors, or publishers that shall be submitted to the journal in which the article was published.

2. The journal’s Commission on Conflict Resolution shall examine the request.

3. The Commission on Conflict Resolution shall decide to retract the article if there is sufficient evidence to do so.

4. Upon consideration of the request, the Commission on Conflict Resolution shall notify the person who initiated article removal of its decision.

5. Should the Commission decide to retract the article, this shall be agreed on with the authors, and the journal shall publish a retraction statement that shall include the article’s metadata.

6. If the journal’s articles are indexed in databases, the journal shall notify the databases that the article has been retracted and should not be cited, identifying the reasons for the retraction.

 

Preprint and postprint Policy

Prior to acceptance and publication in our journals, 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 our journal 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.


This website uses cookies

You consent to our cookies if you continue to use our website.

About Cookies