Preview

PHARMACOECONOMICS. Modern pharmacoeconomics and pharmacoepidemiology

Advanced search

Editorial Policies

Focus and Scope

The journal «PHARMACOECONOMICS. Modern pharmacoeconomics and pharmacoepidemiology» is intended for both healthcare practitioners - doctors of clinical specialties, pharmacists, and for decision-makers on state procurement of medicines under preferential drug provision of the population, at formation of the list of vital and essential drugs (VED), federal target programs, Seven High-Cost Nosologies program for treatment of rare (orphan) and particularly expensive diseases.

The journal covers theory and practice of pharmacoeconomic and pharmacoepidemiology studies . Readers will find the reviews of international trends, foreign and domestic studies, characteristics of methodological foundations of pharmacoeconomic and pharmacoepidemiological analysis, drug utilization reviews, publications on relevant events and announcements of future events. The journal periodically publishes theses of relevant conferences and congresses. Of course, the journal is based on the original articles with the results of Russian pharmacoeconomic and pharmacoepidemiology studies.

The work of the editorial board is aimed at a balanced theoretical and practical content of the magazine. "Pharmacoeconomics. Modern pharmacoeconomics and pharmacoepidemiology" is an independent publication and is not biased, so it reflected a variety of views from both the administrative structures, as well as by the scientific community and, of course, the producers of medicines. The editorial staff tries to publication was not under the influence of any of the parties. At the same time from the beginning planned as a journal peer reviewed publication.

 

Section Policies

Methodology
Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed
Russian Studies
Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed
Developments
Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed
Theses
Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed
Economic Review
Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed
Conferences
Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed
Original Article
Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed
Review articles
Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed
Foreign Experience
Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed
Drug Utilization
Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed
Review articles
Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed
Events
Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed
Comments and Opinions
Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed
 

Publication Frequency

4 issues per year

 

Open Access Policy

It is an open access journal. All articles are made freely available to readers immediatly upon publication.

Our open access policy is in accordance with the Budapest Open Access Initiative (BOAI) definition - it means that articles have free availability on the public internet, permitting any users to read, download, copy, distribute, print, search, or link to the full texts of these articles, crawl them for indexing, pass them as data to software, or use them for any other lawful purpose, without financial, legal, or technical barriers other than those inseparable from gaining access to the internet itself.

For more information please read BOAI statement.

 

Peer-Review

The Procedure of Peer Review of Articles in the "PHARMACOECONOMICS. Modern Pharmacoeconomics and Pharmacoepidemiology" Journal.

 

            The procedure of peer review of articles received by the editor's office of the "PHARMACOECONOMICS. Modern Pharmacoeconomics and Pharmacoepidemiology" journal was approved on the basis of the resolution of the editorial board of the journal of 01.09.2008.

 

General Provisions  

 

            All articles received by the editor's office of the journal shall be peer reviewed in accordance with the approved procedure. Leading professionals that work in research fields corresponding to the topics of the articles shall be involved in peer review of the latter.

            Manuscripts of the scientific articles received by the editor's office of the journal shall be reviewed by the secretary in charge for compliance with the journal profile as well as with the requirements to format. Then they shall be registered. After the registration, the secretary in charge shall direct the article to peer review of one reviewer. However, if the topic of manuscript is in several fields of medicine, it may be simultaneously or consequently directed to review of two or more professionals.

In certain cases, the issue of selection of the reviewer may be resolved after discussion at the meeting of the editorial board.

            The peer review shall have the anonymous nature, the details of the reviewer shall be confidential information. Disclosure of the details shall only be allowed with the consent of the reviewer upon the author's request. Reviewers shall be notified that the manuscripts sent to them are private property of their authors and shall not be subject to disclosure. Reviewers shall not be allowed to make copies of articles for their own needs.

            Sending of the article to peer review shall be accompanied with the letter signed by the head of the editor's office on the letterhead of the journal which shall indicate the term of completion of peer review (not more than 2 months). This term shall be monitored afterwards.

Materials of peer review shall be kept in the publishing house and in the editor's office for not less than 5 years. Copy of materials of peer review may be sent to the Ministry of Education and Science of the Russian Federation upon the corresponding request sent to the editor's office of the journal.

            Receiving of materials of peer review shall be recorded in the article data sheet with indication of the date.

The review shall provide objective assessment of the article and contain comprehensive analysis of its advantages and disadvantages. Materials of peer review shall contain comments of the reviewer and their opinion of the possibility of publishing the article in the presented form, after revision, or of the inadvisability of its publication.

            If the reviewer's opinion of the article is positive or negative, the secretary in charge shall send the article to the next meeting of the editorial board for taking the final resolution regarding the article, i.e., "in press" or "for rejection", after which the authors receive the copy of materials of peer review or grounded rejection. If materials of peer review contain material comments and proposals for revision of the manuscript, the secretary in charge shall sent the article to its authors "for revision" with enclosure of the accompanying letter and the full text of peer review. After revision, the article shall be again reviewed by the editor's office or again sent to the reviewer. The final resolution regarding it shall be taken by the editorial board. In such cases, the date of receiving of the article by the editor's office shall be deemed the date of returning of the revised article.

            The editor's office shall reserve the right to reject articles in the case of impossibility or unwillingness of the author to consider the comments of the editor's office.

            The final resolution regarding all articles shall be taken by the editorial board at its meetings after discussion of each manuscript, which shall be recorded in the minutes of the meeting and in the article data sheet.

 

Regulations Regarding Materials of Peer Review of Scientific Articles

 

            The purpose of peer review is to ensure strict selection of authors' manuscripts for publishing and to provide specific recommendations for their improvement. The review shall provide objective assessment of the scientific article and contain comprehensive analysis of its scientific and methodological advantages and disadvantages. The recommended volume of materials of peer review shall be about 15 thousand characters (including spaces), which is about 1.5 of A4 format pages using font size 12.

 

 

Requirements to the Content of Materials of Peer Review of a Scientific Article

 

The reviewer shall be obliged to:

 

1. Determine compliance of the material of the article with the journal profile.

2. Assess actuality of the article content: if the level of the material set forth in it complies with state-of-art achievements of science and technology.

3. Assess the significance of the received results of research (scientific, practical).

4. Indicate the degree of meeting the requirements to execution of the materials of the article: compliance of the article volume, availability of abstract in Russian and in English, availability of the list of references and links to it in the text, as well as availability of contact details of authors, etc.

5. Provide qualitative and/or quantitative assessment of the facts and illustrations set forth in the article.

6. Assess completeness and validity of the information provided.

7. Assess correctness and accuracy of the used (or introduced) definitions and wording.

8. Provide assessment of the literary style of narration.

9. Provide grounded opinion of the article on the whole, comments, and, if necessary, recommendations to its improvement.

 

            The set of the aforementioned issues has been provided for reference only. Each specific article shall require individual approach to selection of its assessment criteria.

            According to results of analysis of the article, the conclusive part of peer review shall provide specific recommendations to its publication in the provided form or of the need for its revision or rewriting (with practical comments) or, probably, of the inadvisability of its publication in this journal.

 

General Director of

IRBIS LLC Publishing House                                                           Dizhevskaya E.V.

 

Indexation

Articles in "PHARMACOECONOMICS. Modern pharmacoeconomics and pharmacoepidemiology" are indexed by several systems:

  • Russian Scientific Citation Index (RSCI) – a database, accumulating information on papers by Russian scientists, published in native and foreign titles. The RSCI project is under development since 2005 by “Electronic Scientific Library” foundation (elibrary.ru).
  • Google Scholar is a freely accessible web search engine that indexes the full text of scholarly literature across an array of publishing formats and disciplines. The Google Scholar index includes most peer-reviewed online journals of Europe and America's largest scholarly publishers, plus scholarly books and other non-peer reviewed journals.

 

Publishing Ethics

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/). 

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: "PHARMACOECONOMICS. Modern pharmacoeconomics and
pharmacoepidemiology

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 "PHARMACOECONOMICS. Modern pharmacoeconomics and pharmacoepidemiology"  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 "PHARMACOECONOMICS. Modern pharmacoeconomics and pharmacoepidemiology" 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 "PHARMACOECONOMICS. Modern pharmacoeconomics and pharmacoepidemiology"  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 "PHARMACOECONOMICS. Modern pharmacoeconomics and pharmacoepidemiology"  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 "FARMACOECONOMICS. Modern pharmacoeconomics and pharmacoepidemiology" 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 "PHARMACOECONOMICS. Modern pharmacoeconomics and pharmacoepidemiology"  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 "PHARMACOECONOMICS. Modern pharmacoeconomics and pharmacoepidemiology" 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.

 

Founder

  • IRBIS LLC

IRBIS publishing house deals with publishing and distribution of specialized journals for physicians.

Journals of IRBIS publishing house are:

  • The unique format on the medical press market
  • Addressed mailing
  • Full-test web versions with the possibility of downloading PDF copies of articles
  • Issuing of training and methodological recommendations 

 

Author fees

Publication in journal is free of charge for all the authors.

 

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.