Journal Editorial Policy
The basic principles of the editorial policy of the journal

“Actual problems in dentistry” is a scientific journal that publishes scientific articles on pressing issues of industry science. The editorial board, reviewers and authors of the journal strive to maintain high standards of scientific and publication ethics: transparency of interaction between the editorial staff and the authors of the journal, mandatory review of all articles submitted to the journal by independent experts or members of the editorial board, free access to publications.

In its work, the editorial board of the journal is guided by the principles developed by the International Committee on Publication Ethics Committee on Publication Ethics - COPE (https://publicationethics.org/resources/code-conduct), the Association of Scientific Editors and Publishers (ANRI / ASEP) (https://rasep.ru/sovet-po-etike/deklaratsiya), and also takes into account the experience of authoritative international journals and publishers. The journal is an open access publication: all users can freely, free of charge read, download, link and copy published materials in accordance with the principles of the Budapest Open Access Initiative (BOAI) (http://www.budapestopenaccessinitiative.org/).

The journal is published in accordance with the following basic principles of editorial policy:

1.    Editorial Ethics. The editorial board of the journal is guided in its activities by the principles of professionalism, objectivity, scientificness, and impartiality. The authors, members of the editorial board, and the editor-in-chief of the journal have ethical obligations associated with the preparation of a scientific publication and the dissemination of scientific research results. The editorial team’s interaction with the authors is based on the principles of transparency, honesty, courtesy, fairness and objectivity.
2.   The existence of a peer review institution. All the contents of the journal, except for advertising and editorial publications, clearly marked as such, undergo mandatory double-blind peer review by members of the editorial board or independent experts. Manuscripts are being prepared for publication.
3.   Informational transparency. The journal’s website publishes in the public domain information on the publishing house, the editor-in-chief, the editorial board, the journal’s description, editorial policy, rules for sending, reviewing and publishing scientific articles, full-text versions of all scientific articles published in the journal (and, if necessary, all reviews on scientific articles), other information in accordance with Russian and international standards for the information transparency of publications.
4.    Ethical criteria of authorship. The author of the publication should be a person who has largely participated in its creation. All authors must consent to the publication. Copyright is respected in accordance with the Civil Code of the Russian Federation and other regulatory acts.
5.   Interaction with the professional community. The editors of the journal strive to interact with professional industry scientific communities in order to ensure high quality scientific publications.
6.    Prevention of ethical violations. The editorial board, other reviewers, other subjects of the publication process seek to prevent unethical behavior, to prevent and correct violations of the ethical principles of the journal, including conflicts of interest of subjects of the publication process.

Formatting Requirements

Sample article design (with comments)

FORMATTING REQUIREMENTS FOR THE ARTICLES

1. Article elements

Abstract

Keywords

Text of article

Acknowledgements

References

2. Text

2.1. General requirements. The article length should be 10- 20 typewritten pages (30 000 – 40 000 characters). Before sending the article please use spellcheck and take one of the recent published papers as an example. This eliminates the deformation of graphics and formulas. Page setup: margins – Left - 3 cm, Right 2 cm, top -2 cm, bottom – 2 cm, 1.5 spacing, standard tab stop (1.27 cm); font – TimesNewRoman 12 pt. Use the standard fonts and uniform design both for the whole text and for all its elements.

2.2. The abstract volume is 200-250 words. The abstract should include the following parts:

— subject, topic, aims, research hypothesis;
— methods;
— results;

— results application;
— conclusion, discussion;
— limitations, themes for future research.
The abstract should show special aspects, novelty and advantages of the research as to interest the reader and make him/her to read the whole paper. It is an independent text describing the main results of the research without reference to the article, so reference citations and abbreviations must be avoided. Make the abstract’s style clear and concise, free from secondary information.

2.3. Keywords should countnot less than 10 words, without full point.

2.4. Structure of article

The article should be written in the IMRAD format (Introduction, Methods, Results and Discussion) and have the following structure:
— Introduction;

— Theory;
— Data and Methods;
— Methods or Model;
— Results;
— Conclusions or Discussion and Implication.

3. Figures

The paper should not contain photos, all figures should be in the black and white format. Make all graphic objects visual, demonstrative and clear. Illustrations should be numbered and placed after they are first referred to in the text. State the figure’s name below the figure (in italics). The figures should be made in a format that allows editing and configuration changes without further recourse to the author. Full-color figures will are not allowed, as well as partly colored figures. The figures are uploaded to the system as separate files in original format (*jpeg, *jpg, *tiff, *xls), except figures made in Microsoft Word. The figures created by means of MS Word should be grouped together. The objects created by other means than MS Word should have *jpeg (*jpg), or *tiff extension, with a resolution not less than 72 dpi (screen resolution) and size of at least 1500x1500 (dots per inch), or 164 mm width and 300 dpi. The author is responsible for the correct using of characters, formulas and figures.

4. Tables

In the tables, the numbers are aligned to the right (in italics), the title of the table is in the center (in bold). The tables should be untitled and numbered consecutively. Please avoid overcrowding the tables and the excessive use of words, colored text and cells. The author should indicate the sources of the data provided in tables.

5. Language standards

Write the paper in a good English. The translation from native languages should be made by professional translators or edited by proof-reader. Machine translations will be rejected. The authors should respect English spelling and punctuation. Papers which need to be substantially edited can be returned to the author.

6. References

The reference section is written at the end of the article and should contain at least 20 - 30 sources (foreign - not less than 30%). Self-citations should not exceed 15%. Sources are numbered in alphabetical order. If you refer to several sources at once you should group them to the single integrated reference. Examples of references in the text of paper: [15]; [1, 15, 34]; [1, 8–22].

Examples

6.1. Journal articles with DOI:

Author, A. A. (Year of publication). Article Title. Journal Title, vol. (no.), pages. doi.
e.g. Monastyrny, E. A. (2006). Innovative cluster. Innovations, 2, 38-43. doi:10.1037/0278- 6133.24.2.225.
6.2. Journal articles without DOI:
Author, A. A. (Year of publication). Article Title. Journal Title, vol. (no.), pages.
e.g. Monastyrny, E. A., & Kulik, J. A. (2005). Social and economic development. Economy of Region, 3, 39-52.
Monastyrny, E. A., Kulik, J. A., Nulif, K. L. (2008). Social and economic development. Economy, 3, 52-67.
6.3. Books:
Author, A. A. (Year of publication). Title of book (Edition). Location: Publisher, pages. e.g. Monastyrny, E. A. (2006). Innovative cluster. Moscow: Nauka Publ., 267.
Duncan, G. J., & Brooks-Gunn, J. (Eds). (1997). Consequences of growing up poor. New York, NY: Russell Sage Foundation, 350.
Plath, S. (2000). The unabridged journals. K. V. Kukil (Ed.). New York, NY: Anchor, 680.

6.4. Chapter in a book:
Author, A. A., & Author, B. B. (Year of publication). Title of chapter. In A. A. Editor & B. B. Editor (Eds). Title of book (pages of chapter). Location: Publisher. e.g. Monastyrny, E. A. (2006). Innovative cluster. In J. A. Kulik (Ed.). Innovations (pp. 12-21). Moscow: Nauka Publ.

6.5. Electronic sources (Web publications):

Links to websites, online sources (does not apply to original articles, monographs, etc., posted on the Internet), legal documents (laws, resolution, acts, etc.), newspapers and statistical collections are placed in the text in footnotes and should not be mentioned in the reference list.
Standard for references conforms to the requirements of APA (the American Psychological Association). For each internet-source it necessary to indicate the Date of access. For all sources having doi, please, indicate it at the end of the source.

Author, A. A., & Author, B. B. (Date of publication). Title of article. Title of Online Periodical, volume number (issue number if available). [Electronic source] Retrieved from http://www.someaddress.com/full/url/ (Date of access: dd.mm.yyyy)..
e.g. Tatarkin, A. I. (2013). Self-development of regional socio-economic systems as the need for Russia’s federal development. Economy of Region, 4. [Electronic source] Retrieved from http://economyofregion.com/archive/2013/47/2164/pdf/ (Date of access: 14.04.2016).

Papers which don’t meet these requirements can be returned to the authors for revision.

THE ETHICS OF SCIENTIFIC PUBLICATIONS

1. General Provisions

The editors, editorial staff and publisher of Actual problems in dentistry adhere to ethic standards of the international scientific society and strive to prevent any violations of these norms. 

The editors, editorial staff and publisher of the Journal base their activities on the code and recommendations of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), Publication Ethics and Publication Malpractice Statement of Elsevier, and the Declaration of the Association of Science Editors and Publishers “Ethical principles of scientific publications”, as well as pay special attention to the experience of reputable international journals and publishing houses. 

Below are the principles of ethical conduct mandatory for all parties involved into reviewing and publishing a manuscript: author(s), reviewers, the editorial staff, editorial board and publisher of the Journal. 

Adherence to the ethical code by all participants ensures the compliance with intellectual property rights, enhances the quality of the Journal in the eyes of the international scientific society, and prevents unlawful use of the authors’ materials for the benefit of other parties. 

2. Duties of Authors

The authors are personally responsible for the text of the manuscript they submit, which means complying with the following rules: 

• The original manuscript as submitted should not be under consideration for publication or published earlier elsewhere;
• Research results described in the manuscript are to be an independent and original study. Excessive adoptions, any plagiarism including quotations without references, rephrasing or capture the right for results of someone else’s research are unethical and unacceptable. The manuscripts compiled from materials published earlier by some other authors without original revision and personal reasoning of the author are not accepted for publication in the journal;
• Submission of reliable results of the conducted research or work;
• Acknowledgment of all those contributing to the progress or defining the character of the research. In particular, the manuscript is to include references to Russian and foreign publications which were valuable for the research;
• All those making significant intellectual contribution into the manuscript’s concept and structure, as into conduction of the research or interpretation of the results are to be mentioned as co-authors. Gratitude is to be expressed to the other participating in certain aspects of the research. No one not involved into the research is to be mentioned as a co-author;
• Should some significant errors or inaccuracy be identified in the manuscript while it is being reviewed or after it has been published, the editors are to be notified of this immediately and a joint decision is to be taken about confessing the error and/or its correction within the shortest period. Should the editors learn from a third party that the published manuscript contains significant errors, the author must immediately remove or correct such errors or provide the editors with the proves that submitted information is correct;
• All funders of the research are to be mentioned;
• The author should declare any conflict of interests, which can exert certain influence on the research results, their interpretation, and the opinion of the reviewers.

3. Duties of Reviewers

The reviewer performs the scientific expert evaluation of the author’s materials, the evaluation is to be unbiased and compliant with the following rules:

• Expert evaluation is to assist to the author to enhance the quality of the manuscript’s text and to the editor-in-chief to make the decision about publication;
• 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 chief editor and excuse himself from the review process;
• The author or co-author of the manuscript cannot be the reviewer as well as academic advisors of post-graduate students and/or those working together with the author in the same department;
• Any 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;
• The reviewer is to be free of prejudices. Personal remarks to the author are inappropriate. The reviewer’s opinion is to be expressed clearly and reasonably;
• The reviewer is to draw the attention of the editor-in-chief to the significant similarity or partial overlapping of the reviewed manuscript with any other one published before.

4. Duties of Editors

The editors and editorial board members are responsible for public disclosure of the authors’ manuscripts which implies adherence to the following rules: 

• Implementing independent policy for selection and publication of the materials presenting scientific and practical research;
• Ensuring compliance of the published materials with accepted international standards and ethical code;
• Enhancing the Journal quality for meeting requirements of readers and authors to the full;
• Cooperation with authors and reviewers in order to provide high quality of published materials;
• Rejection or acceptance of materials for publication is to be based on importance, originality, clarity and relevance of the research with the consideration of its intellectual content without any discrimination on grounds of race, gender, sexual orientation, religion, ethnic origin, nationality or political belief of the author;
• Publication of materials reflecting different scientific opinions, with the right to reduce the materials to be published, edit them and adapt to the journal headings;
• Confession of committed errors and if necessary publication of corrections, clarifications, refutations and apologies. 

The editor-in-chief is responsible for making decisions on the publication of the submitted materials, estimating reliability and importance of the study for researchers and readers as well as its compliance with legal requirements (copyright infringement, plagiarism, and libel). When making decision on publication, the editor-in-chief consults the editorial board or reviewers. 

5. Duties of Publishers

In the course of business the publisher is responsible for public disclosure of the authors’ manuscripts which implies adherence to the following rules: 

• Assisting in fulfillment of ethical responsibilities of the editors, editorial board, reviewers and authors in compliance with these requirements;
• Supporting the editorial staff in reviewing objections to ethical aspects of the published materials and assisting in cooperation with other journals and/or publishers if it is useful for editors during performance of their duties;
• Assuring confidentiality of all information received from the authors till its publication;
• Confidence that potential profit from advertisement will not exert influence on the editors’ decisions on acceptance of the manuscript for publication;
• Promptitude in the publication of corrections, explanations, refutation and apologies when necessary;
• Provision of the editorial staff with the opportunity to exclude publications containing plagiarism and unreliable data.

6. Informed consent and human and animal rights 

Activities of Actual problems in dentistry are based on the WMA Declaration of Helsinki - Ethical Principles for Medical Research Involving Human Subjects and the journal team strives for complying with ethical norms and rules of data collection for research involving human subjects.

Medical research involving human subjects must conform to generally accepted scientific principles, be based on a thorough knowledge of the scientific literature, other relevant sources of information, and adequately conducted laboratory reports along with studies in animals where applicable.  The welfare of animals used for research must be respected.

Before starting any research the researcher should familiarize him/herself with the informed consent provisions of the WMA Declaration of Helsinki and perform the research in the strict compliance with the principles presented below (Items 25-31 of the WMA Declaration of Helsinki):

25. Participation by individuals capable of giving informed consent as subjects in medical research must be voluntary. Although it may be appropriate to consult family members or community leaders, no individual capable of giving informed consent may be enrolled in a research study unless he or she freely agrees.
26. In medical research involving human subjects capable of giving informed consent, each potential subject must be adequately informed of the aims, methods, sources of funding, any possible conflicts of interest, institutional affiliations of the researcher, the anticipated benefits and potential risks of the study and the discomfort it may entail, post-study provisions and any other relevant aspects of the study. The potential subject must be informed of the right to refuse to participate in the study or to withdraw consent to participate at any time without reprisal.  Special attention should be given to the specific information needs of individual potential subjects as well as to the methods used to deliver the information.

After ensuring that the potential subject has understood the information, the physician or another appropriately qualified individual must then seek the potential subject’s freely-given informed consent, preferably in writing.  If the consent cannot be expressed in writing, the non-written consent must be formally documented and witnessed.

All medical research subjects should be given the option of being informed about the general outcome and results of the study.

27. When seeking informed consent for participation in a research study the physician must be particularly cautious if the potential subject is in a dependent relationship with the physician or may consent under duress. In such situations, the informed consent must be sought by an appropriately qualified individual who is completely independent of this relationship.
28. For a potential research subject who is incapable of giving informed consent, the physician must seek informed consent from the legally authorized representative.  These individuals must not be included in a research study that has no likelihood of benefit for them unless it is intended to promote the health of the group represented by the potential subject, the research cannot instead be performed with persons capable of providing informed consent, and the research entails only minimal risk and minimal burden.
29. When a potential research subject who is deemed incapable of giving informed consent is able to give assent to decisions about participation in research, the physician must seek that assent in addition to the consent of the legally authorized representative.  The potential subject’s dissent should be respected.
30. Research involving subjects who are physically or mentally incapable of giving consent, for example, unconscious patients, may be done only if the physical or mental condition that prevents giving informed consent is a necessary characteristic of the research group. In such circumstances, the physician must seek informed consent from the legally authorized representative.  If no such representative is available and if the research cannot be delayed, the study may proceed without informed consent provided that the specific reasons for involving subjects with a condition that renders them unable to give informed consent have been stated in the research protocol and the study has been approved by a research ethics committee. Consent to remain in the research must be obtained as soon as possible from the subject or a legally authorized representative.
31. The physician must fully inform the patient which aspects of their care are related to the research.  The refusal of a patient to participate in a study or the patient’s decision to withdraw from the study must never adversely affect the patient-physician relationship.
32. For medical research using identifiable human material or data, such as research on material or data contained in biobanks or similar repositories, physicians must seek informed consent for its collection, storage and/or reuse.  There may be exceptional situations where consent would be impossible or impracticable to obtain for such research.  In such situations, the research may be done only after consideration and approval of a research ethics committee.

When submitting results of experimental research involving human subjects, the authors should specify if the performed procedures compiled with the code of ethics provided in the WMA Declaration of Helsinki. If the principles of the WMA Declaration of Helsinki were not considered during the research, the authors should justify their approach to the research and guarantee that the ethics committee of the organization where the research was conducted approved of such an approach.

The journal "Problems of Dentistry" publishes in Russian (or English) language works on all sections of dentistry, as well as related sciences. The publication accepts the results of original research, theoretical and overview articles of interest to the scientific community.

Applications for publication in the magazine are accepted through the site https://dental-press.ru/ru/nauka/. Before you apply, you need to undergo a small registration procedure.

The text of the article is made in an on-line editor built into the system. Metadata is entered into separate fields intended for this purpose.

Additional materials (cover letters, etc.) are uploaded in the section "downloading a file" when preparing an application for publication.

The decision to publish is taken by the editorial board of the journal on the basis of expert reviews of reviewers, taking into account the correspondence of the materials of the thematic focus of the journal, their scientific significance and relevance. On changing the status of the application, the author receives a notification by e-mail.

Received manuscript is sent for review to specialists in this field of research. The choice of reviewers remains with the editorial board of the journal. The manuscript, which received negative reviews from two independent reviewers, is rejected by the editorial board's decision. The article, which needs further development, is sent to the authors with the comments of the reviewer and the scientific editor. Authors should take into account all comments made during the review and editing of the article, respond to each of the comments and indicate the place in the manuscript where the changes are made. In case of disagreement with the reviewer or the editor, the author should briefly and clearly substantiate his position. The author's changes in the manuscript must be made in the electronic version of the text and returned to the editorial office. The editors do not provide the authors with a copy of the proof of the article on paper. The article sent by the editorial staff for revision after reviewing and corrected in accordance with the comments of the reviewer must be returned to the editor within 15 days from the moment of its receipt by the authors. An article returned to the editorial office after a month has passed will have a new date of receipt.

Each article generates a contract, which the author receives by e-mail notification. The contract must be printed and signed in 2 copies. send to the editorial office at: 620109, Ekaterinburg, ul. Metallurgov, 4a-3

Po voprosam razmescheniya reklamno-informacionnyh materialov neobhodimo obraschat'sya v redakciyu zhurnala:

tel.: +79089208478

email: ps-press@mail.ru

Peer-Review

A double-blind peer review method is mandatory for processing of all scientific manuscripts submitted to the editorial stuff of Actual problems in dentistry. This implies that neither the reviewer is aware of the authorship of the manuscript, nor the author maintains any contact with the reviewer.

1. The journal reviews all scientific manuscripts corresponding to the journal subject matter and submitted to the editorial stuff with the aim of giving an expert opinion. Members of the editorial board and editorial council as well as leading Russian and international experts in corresponding areas of life sciences, invited as independent readers, perform peer reviews. All reviewers are acknowledged experts in the subject of reviewed articles and had their work on subject in question published in the last three years. The editor-in-chief, deputy editor-in-chief, science editor, and head of the publishing house choose readers for peer review. We aim to limit the review process to 2-4 weeks, though in some cases the schedule may be adjusted at the reviewer’s request.
2. Reviewer has an option to abnegate the assessment should any conflict of interests arise that may affect perception or interpretation of the manuscript. Upon the scrutiny, the reviewer is expected to present the editorial board with one of the following recommendations:
   - to accept the paper in its present state;
   - to invite the author to revise their manuscript to address specific concerns before final decision is reached;
   - the final decision to be reached following further reviewing by another specialist;
   - to reject the manuscript outright.
3. If the reviewer has recommended any refinements, the editorial staff would suggest the author either to implement the corrections, or to dispute them reasonably. Authors are kindly required to limit their revision to 2 months after the date of notification and resubmit the adapted manuscript within this period for final evaluation.
4. Should the author decide to refuse from publishing the manuscript, they are to notify the editor verbally or in writing. In case the author fails to do so within 3 months since receiving a copy of the initial review, the editorial board takes the manuscript off the register and notifies the author accordingly.
5. If the author and reviewers meet insoluble contradictions regarding revision of the manuscript, the editorial board has a right to send the manuscript for further examination. In a conflict situation the editor-in-chief resolves it at the editorial board meeting.
6. The editorial staff sends to the authors of the submitted manuscripts copies of reviews or reasonable refusal. The editorial staff takes on the obligation to give the copies of reviews to the Ministry of Education and Science of the Russian Federation upon the request. The editorial board reaches the final decision to reject a manuscript on the hearing according to reviewers’ recommendations, and duly notifies the authors of their decision via e-mail. The board does not accept previously rejected manuscripts for re-evaluation.
7. Upon the decision to accept the manuscript for publishing, the editorial staff notifies the authors of the scheduled date of publication.
8. Kindly note that positive review does not guarantee the acceptance, as final decision in all cases lies with the editorial board. By his authority, the editor-in-chief rules final solution of every conflict.
9. Original reviews of submitted manuscripts remain deposited for 5 years.

The procedure for recall (retraction) of an article in the journal «Actual problems in dentistry»

(developed based on the recommendations of the Council for the Ethics of Scientific Publications

Association of Scientific Editors and Publishers)

• detection of incorrect borrowings (plagiarism) in the publication;
• duplication of articles in several publications;
• detection of fraud or fabrication in the work (for example, manipulation of experimental data);
• detection of serious errors in the work (for example, incorrect interpretation of the results), which casts doubt on its scientific value;
• incorrect composition of the authors (persons included who did not participate in writing the article, conducting research, etc .; persons who were directly involved in conducting the research and writing the article are not indicated);
• hidden conflict of interest;
• republishing an article without the consent of the author;
• The article did not go through the review process.

• the author (s) of the article, which sends a written motivated appeal to the editorial office of the journal about recalling the article;
• the editor-in-chief of the magazine, which is preparing a reasonable idea of ​​the reasons for withdrawing the publication;
• The editors of another journal, which sent a request to the editors of the journal «Actual problems in dentistry»;
• other persons who have presented evidence of a violation of scientific ethics by the author (s) of the article (for example, participants in a conflict of interest).

• Name of the author and title of the article;
• the name of the publication from which the text is withdrawn;
• initiator of article recall; 
• the basis for the recall of the article and the date of the decision;
• a link to a page on the publication’s website that provides information about retraction;
• the output of the article and DOI (if any);
• topics (social sciences; agriculture, etc.).

Articles are published for a fee.

The cost of publication is calculated after receiving a positive review of the article and approval of the manuscript, drawn up according to the requirements of the journal.

The cost of 1 page of the manuscript is 1,400 rubles.

For example, an article has 15 pages: 15 pages * 1400 rubles / page. = 21,000 rubles.

The total cost of publication cannot be less than 14,000 rubles.

If the article has less than 10 pages, the cost of publication will be 14,000 rubles.

Podpisku na bumazhnuyu versiyu zhurnala mozhno oformit' cherez redakciyu zhurnala, pozvoniv po telefonu +7(908)9208478 libo otpraviv zapros na email: ps-press@mail.ru

Neobhodimo soobschit' FIO podpischika, telefon dlya svyazi i pochtovyy adres (s indeksom) / email, na kotoryy budet vysylat'sya zhurnal. Esli podpiska oformlyaetsya na yur.lico, neobhodimo prilozhit' kartochku predpriyatiya dlya ofromleniya dogovora i vystavleniya scheta.

Stoimost' godovoy podpiski pechatnaya versiya 7 200 (Sem' tysyach dvesti) rubley.

Stoimost' godovoy podpiski elektronnaya versiya 6 000 (Shest' tysyach) rubley.

Podpiska oformlyaetsya s tekuschego mesyaca na god.

4 issues per year

GRNTI