Sections

REVIEWS

The journal publishes reviews of literature, including systematic reviews of clinical trials.

The main purpose of a review manuscript should be a discussion of actual data or presentation the original author's view on a problem. It shouldn't be a simple enumeration of previously published data. Thus, the discussion is a mandatory part of the review manuscript (it can be isolated in a separate section or place systematically throughout the text).

Authors should indicate all the sources of primary information in the manuscript (names of the full-text and references databases, keywords and other search settings).

The manuscript of literature review should be structured into sections and contain graphic materials.

Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed

ORIGINAL STUDIES

The journal accept manuscript containing results of international and local clinical and experimental studies, and meta-analyzes.

The journal is welcome for manuscripts with human subjects studies results, as well as results of experimental studies in vitro. Journal does not publish experimental and clinical studies of dietary supplements ("bioactive adds to food") and animal studies.

Editorial board will select for publication only manuscropts of clinical and experimental studies which were conducted in accordance with international biomedical ethics and deontology principles. Editorial board asks the authors to describe that presented study was conducted in accordance with international GCP standards: voluntary signing of an informed consent by all of participants; approval of the study protocol by the local ethics committee (the distinct name of ethics committee, the meeting date and protocol number should be indicate in a manuscript), etc.

The detailed study protocol should be presented in the manuscript. Authors should give so many details of a study protocol as need for it fully replaying. In the case of meta-analyze authors should describe in details the procedure of information search: names of databases, filters and keywords, as well as any additional search settings for primary sources collecting.

In compliance with the ethics policy editorial board asks authors to indicate the source of funding of their work (study preparation, writing and publishing the manuscript, etc.), and declare of apparent or potential conflicts of interests. Please note that the presence of obvious or potential conflict of interest (including the financial interest of the authors) or affiliation of any organization (public or private) with conduction of the research is not a reason for a manuscript rejection. Rather, it gives additional advantages of manuscript under evaluation by reviewers and will cause more interest and trust from readers.

Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed

MESSAGES & CASE REPORTS

Brief reports usually describe one to three patients or a single family. The text is limited to 2000 words, and up to 20 references. They begin with a brief summary of no more than 150 words.

Potential topics for case reports are:

  • diagnosis: new or rare diseases or unusual presentation of common diseases, uncertain diagnosis, unusual presentation of more common disease, discussion of differential diagnoses, novel diagnostic procedures;
  • treatment: new treatments or established treatments in new situations, treatment of rare diseases, unique technical procedures, unexpected outcomes or effects, adverse events or unanticipated events;
  • special circumstances: highly individualized treatments, complex situations, integration of multiple therapies, ethical challenges, learning from errors, findings that shed new light on the possible pathogenesis of a disease or an adverse effect.

We recommend all authors to hold to manuscript structure and chronologize the facts. Information about a patient should be presented to an expert clinician or clinicians in stages (indicated by boldface type in the manuscript) to simulate the way such information emerges in clinical practice. 

Report common information about the patient’s disease. In case your case reports is devoted to treatment challenge, describe the medication, its indications and usage and potential side effects. A summary of data on the topic may be also presented.

Briefly summarize the background of this case report. Describe the patient characteristics (such as the relevant demographics—age, gender, ethnicity, occupation) and their presenting concerns with relevant details of related past interventions. Also, present the medical, family, and psychosocial history including lifestyle and genetic information, other pertinent co-morbidities and interventions (other therapies including self-care).

Presentation of this case should include the following:

  • symptoms of the disorder;
  • physical examination focused on the important findings including results from testing;
  • diagnostic methods (including laboratory testing, imaging results, questionnaires, referral diagnostic information);
  • diagnostic challenges (such as limited ability to complete an evaluation, patient availability, cultural) and diagnostic reasoning including other diagnoses considered;
  • interventions (such as pharmacologic, surgical, preventive, lifestyle, self-care);
  • administration and intensity of the intervention (including dosage, strength, duration, frequency);
  • prognostic characteristics.

Please describe the strengths and limitations of this case report including case management, and the scientific and medical literature related to this case report. Discuss the rationale for your conclusions such as potential causation and the ways this case might be generalized to a larger population. Finally, what are the main findings of this case report and what are the 'take-away' messages?

Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed

INTERVIEW

Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Unchecked Peer Reviewed
 

Peer Review Process

  1. All manuscripts submitted to the Editorial Board of the journal are subject to mandatory double-blind peer review (reviewer does not receive information about the authors of the manuscript, the authors of the manuscript do not receive information about the reviewers).
  2. Review of manuscripts is carried out by members of the Editorial Board and the Editorial Council, as well as by invited reviewers — leading experts in the relevant field. The decision on the choice of a reviewer for the examination of the article is made by the editor-in-chief, Deputy editor-in-chief, Executive Secretary. The review Period is 4 weeks, but at the request of the reviewer it can be extended.
  3. Each reviewer has the right to refuse the review in case of a clear conflict of interest affecting the perception and interpretation of the manuscript. Following the review of the manuscript, the reviewer gives recommendations on the future of the manuscript (each decision of the reviewer must be justified):
    • to accept the manuscript for publication in the present form;
    • to accept the manuscript for publication after correcting the shortcomings noted by the reviewer;
    • to reject the manuscript;
    • to submit the manuscript to the journal of another profile.
  4. The editorial Board of the journal sends the text of reviews to the author. If there are recommendations for revision of the manuscript, the editorial Board proposes to take them into account when preparing a new version of the manuscript.
  5. In case of disagreement with any recommendations (comments) in the response letter to the reviewers, the authors need to clearly argue the reason for the refusal to make the appropriate corrections (additions).
  6. Revision of the article should not take more than two months from the date of sending an electronic message to the authors about the need to make changes. The manuscript modified by the author will be re-sent for review.
  7. The authors make out the answers to the reviewers in separate files and upload them to the site as additional ones on the "summary" tab at the User page. In the case of absence of such a file, further work with the manuscript is suspended, and the authors are notified accordingly.
  8. In case of refusal of the authors to finalize the materials, they must notify the editorial Board in writing of their refusal to publish the article. If the authors do not return the revised version after three months from the date of sending the review, the editorial Board removes it from the account even in the absence of information from the authors with the refusal to finalize the article. In such situations, the authors will be notified of the withdrawal of the manuscript from registration in connection with the expiration of the period allotted for revision.
  9. The editorial Board conducts no more than three rounds of review for each manuscript. If after double revision of the manuscript the reviewers or the editorial Board still have significant comments, the editorial Board rejects the manuscript and removes it from registration. In this case, the authors are notified accordingly.
  10. If the author and reviewers have any unsolvable contradictions regarding the manuscript, the editorial Board has the right to send the manuscript for additional review.
  11. The decision to refuse to publish the manuscript is made at a meeting of the editorial Board in accordance with the recommendations of the reviewers. The message about refusal in the publication goes to the author by e-mail, in the letter reviews and the bases for refusal in the publication are given. The manuscript, not recommended by the decision of the editorial Board for publication, is not accepted for re-consideration.
  12. The presence of a positive review is not a sufficient basis for the publication of the article. The final decision on the publication is made by the editorial Board. In conflict situations, the decision is made by the editor-in-chief.
  13. After the editorial Board of the journal decides on the admission of the manuscript for publication, the editorial Board informs the author and indicates the date of publication.
  14. Originals of reviews are kept in editorial office not less than 5 years.
  15. Reviews of manuscripts are not published in the public domain and are used only in the internal document circulation of the editorial Board, as well as in communication with the authors.

 

Publication Frequency

Clinical nutrition and metabolism is a quarterly publication (4 issues annualy). Additional publications, such as conference proceedings,  special issues, and supplemental issues are possible. 

 

Open Access Policy

The publications in the Journal are available to all interested from the moment of publication. So, this journal provides immediate Gold Open Access (in accordance with Budapest Open Access Initiative) to its content on the principle that making research freely available to the public supports a greater global exchange of knowledge. Also the editorial board belives that it provides free public access to the results of research and contributes to the advancement of science and medicine.

Free Full-text access to all articles can be observed via several websites (https://journals.eco-vector.com/2658-4433/www.elibrary.ru) and mobile applications for iOS® (available in AppStore). All accepted articles publish with the Creative Commons International license (CC BY) for more freely distribution and usage worlwide.

 

Archiving

This journal utilizes the LOCKSS system to create a distributed archiving system among participating libraries and permits those libraries to create permanent archives of the journal for purposes of preservation and restoration. More...

Also, the journal makes full-text archives on the Russian Science Electronic Library (http://elibrary.ru/).

 

indexation

The journal is indexed in:

  • Russian Science Citation Index
  • Google Schoolar
  • Ulrich's Perodicals Directory
  • WorldCat

 

Publishing Ethics

The Publication Ethics and Publication Malpractice Statement of the journal "Clinical nutrition and metabolism"  are based on the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) Code of Conduct guidelines available at www.publicationethics.org,  and requirements for peer-reviewed medical journals ((http://health.elsevier.ru/attachments/editor/file/ethical_code_final.pdf), elaborated by the "Elsevier" Publishing House (in accordance with international ethical rules of scientific publications) 

1. Introduction

1.1. The publication in a peer reviewed learned journal, serves many purposes outside of simple communication. It is a building block in the development of a coherent and respected network of knowledge. For all these reasons and more it is important to lay down standards of expected ethical behaviour by all parties involved in the act of publishing: the author, the journal editor, the peer reviewer, the publisher and the society for society-owned or sponsored journal: "Clinical nutrition and metabolism"

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 "Clinical nutrition and metabolism"  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 "Clinical nutrition and metabolism" 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 "Clinical nutrition and metabolism") 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 "Clinical nutrition and metabolism" and excuse himself from the review process.

3.3. Confidentiality – Any manuscripts received for review must be treated as confidential documents. They must not be shown to or discussed with others except as authorised by the editor.

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

3.5. Acknowledgement of Sources – Reviewers  should identify relevant published work that has not been cited by the authors. Any statement that an observation, derivation, or argument had been previously reported should be accompanied by the relevant citation. A reviewer should also call to the editor’s attention any substantial similarity or overlap between the manuscript under consideration and any other published paper of which they have personal knowledge.

3.6. Disclosure and Conflict of Interest

3.6.1.Unpublished materials disclosed in a submitted manuscript must not be used in a reviewer’s own research without the express written consent of the author. Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not used for personal advantage.

3.6.2. Reviewers should not consider manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies, or institutions connected to the papers.

4. Duties of Authors

4.1. Reporting standards

4.1.1. Authors of reports of original research should present an accurate account of the work performed as well as an objective discussion of its significance. Underlying data should be represented accurately in the paper. A paper should contain sufficient detail and references to permit others to replicate the work. Fraudulent or knowingly inaccurate statements constitute unethical behaviour and are unacceptable.

4.1.2. Review and professional publication articles should also be accurate and objective, and editorial 'opinion’ works should be clearly identified as such.

4.2. Data Access and Retention – Authors may be asked to provide the raw data in connection with a paper for editorial review, and should be prepared to provide public access to such data (consistent with the ALPSP-STM Statement on Data and Databases), if practicable, and should in any event be prepared to retain such data for a reasonable time after publication.

4.3. Originality and Plagiarism

4.3.1. The authors should ensure that they have written entirely original works, and if the authors have used the work and/or words of others, this has been appropriately cited or quoted.

4.3.2. Plagiarism takes many forms, from ‘passing off’ another’s paper as the author’s own paper, to copying or paraphrasing substantial parts of another’s paper (without attribution), to claiming results from research conducted by others. Plagiarism in all its forms constitutes unethical publishing behaviour and is unacceptable.

4.4. Multiple, Redundant or Concurrent Publication

4.4.1. An author should not in general publish manuscripts describing essentially the same research in more than one journal of primary publication. Submitting the same manuscript to more than one journal concurrently constitutes unethical publishing behaviour and is unacceptable.

4.4.2. In general, an author should not submit for consideration in another journal a previously published paper.

4.4.3. Publication of some kinds of articles (eg, clinical guidelines, translations) in more than one journal is sometimes justifiable, provided certain conditions are met. The authors and editors of the journals concerned must agree to the secondary publication, which must reflect the same data and interpretation of the primary document. The primary reference must be cited in the secondary publication. Further detail on acceptable forms of secondary publication can be found at www.icmje.org.

4.5. Acknowledgement of Sources – Proper acknowledgment of the work of others must always be given. Authors should cite publications that have been influential in determining the nature of the reported work. Information obtained privately, as in conversation, correspondence, or discussion with third parties, must not be used or reported without explicit, written permission from the source. Information obtained in the course of confidential services, such as refereeing manuscripts or grant applications, must not be used without the explicit written permission of the author of the work involved in these services.

4.6. Authorship of the Paper

4.6.1. Authorship should be limited to those who have made a significant contribution to the conception, design, execution, or interpretation of the reported study. All those who have made significant contributions should be listed as co-authors. Where there are others who have participated in certain substantive aspects of the research project, they should be acknowledged or listed as contributors.

4.6.2. The corresponding author should ensure that all appropriate co-authors and no inappropriate co-authors are included on the paper, and that all co-authors have seen and approved the final version of the paper and have agreed to its submission for publication.

4.7.Hazards and Human or Animal Subjects

4.7.1. If the work involves chemicals, procedures or equipment that have any unusual hazards inherent in their use, the author must clearly identify these in the manuscript.

4.7.2. If the work involves the use of animal or human subjects, the author should ensure that the manuscript contains a statement that all procedures were performed in compliance with relevant laws and institutional guidelines and that the appropriate institutional committee(s) have approved them. Authors should include a statement in the manuscript that informed consent was obtained for experimentation with human subjects. The privacy rights of human subjects must always be observed.

4.8. Disclosure and Conflicts of Interest

4.8.1. All authors should disclose in their manuscript any financial or other substantive conflict of interest that might be construed to influence the results or interpretation of their manuscript. All sources of financial support for the project should be disclosed.

4.8.2. Examples of potential conflicts of interest which should be disclosed include employment, consultancies, stock ownership, honoraria, paid expert testimony, patent applications/registrations, and grants or other funding. Potential conflicts of interest should be disclosed at the earliest possible stage.

4.9. Fundamental errors in published works – When an author discovers a significant error or inaccuracy in a published work, it is the author’s obligation to promptly notify the editor of "Clinical nutrition and metabolism" 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 "Clinical nutrition and metabolism" 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 "Clinical nutrition and metabolism" journal editors in the review of complaints raised concerning ethical issues and help communications with other journals and/or publishers where this is useful to editors.

5.3. Publisher should develop codes of practice and inculcate industry standards for best practice on ethical matters, errors and retractions.

5.4. Publisher should provide specialised legal review and counsel if necessary.

The section is prepared according to the files (http://health.elsevier.ru/attachments/editor/file/ethical_code_final.pdf) of Elsevier publisher (https://www.elsevier.com/) and files (http://publicationethics.org/resources) from Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE - http://publicationethics.org/). 

 

Publication Fee

Articles in the journal "Clinical nutrition and metabolism" are published free of charge for all authors.

The editorial Board does not charge the authors for placing articles in open access, reviewing, preparing the journal for publication, as well as the content of the site and electronic depositing of manuscripts.

 

This website uses cookies

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

About Cookies