All articles submitted to the journal “History of Medicine”, must be reviewed (two-tier review system).

An article that satisfies the subject and requirements of the Journal shall undergo review. Reviewers include members of the Editorial Board, the Editorial Council, highly qualified scientists and specialists of scientific and educational institutions of higher professional education (doctors and PhD, professors, lecturers) having a scientific specialization relevant to the article. Authors or co-authors shall not review their own articles. This also applies to academic supervisors without an academic degree.

The maximum period for review is 2 months.

Confidentiality concerning the authors and reviewers shall be maintained throughout the review process. Exceptions are permissible only in cases of suspected misconduct. Information about a manuscript (data of its receipt, contents, stage of review, reviewer comments, and final decision) is available only for the authors and reviewers.

According to copyright laws, reviewers and editorial staff shall avoid public discussion of works received by the Editorial Board or the use of the author’s ideas prior to publishing the manuscripts.

Reviewer comments shall be provided to the authors and members of the Editorial Board only (to make final decisions regarding the publication of the material). They shall not be made public without the permission of the reviewer, the authors of the manuscript and the Editor-in-Chief.

Reviewers may not copy to their files the manuscripts they receive or make them available to others without permission of the publisher. They must return or destroy the manuscript copies after submitting the review.

Manuscripts rejected by the Editorial Board shall not be stored.

Reviewers must strictly observe the author’s privacy rights until the information contained in an article is published.

A reviewer shall evaluate if the contents of an article correspond to its title, the relevance of the article, how the material is presented, and the general merits and flaws of the work.

A reviewer shall recommend the article for publication, giving reasoned opinions on the requirements to finalize or redo the text (giving specific comments), or reject for publication. If an article has been sent back for revision or rejected, the review is sent to the author (without specifying the name of the reviewer).

A modified or revised article shall be sent for re-reviewing with detailed responses from the author. A reviewer may request a new review of the manuscript. The decision on publication or rejection of an article is made based on the review, the author’s response (if the article was modified), and discussions of the members of the Editorial Board. The decision is recorded in the minutes of the meeting of the Editorial Board. If an article is accepted for publication, the author is to be notified by telephone or email. The originals of reviews are stored in the Editors Office for 5 years from the date of publication and are available upon request to the expert councils of State Commission of Academic Degrees and Titles of the Russian Federation. Articles that have received a positive review are published from a general queue.