Aim and Scope

The goals of the scientific and practical edition "Russian Osteopathic Journal" are:

• to publish research made by applicants for doctor’s degree, post-graduate students, researchers, academic workers, scientists and practicing osteopaths from Russia and distant and near foreign countries,
  
  
• to create scientific and information environment, to promote an exchange of research findings among members of the world medical scientific community, to draw attention to the most relevant, promising and interesting areas in osteopathy, to promote an exchange of views between researchers from different regions and states.

The tasks of the scientific and practical edition "Russian Osteopathic Journal" are:

• to give coverage to the current issues of the new specialty “osteopathy”,
  
  
• to inform about the latest news of the professional community,
  
  
• to acquaint readers with new achievements in osteopathy and related disciplines
  
  
• to promote an exchange of clinical experience between specialists;
  
  
• to publish results of clinical studies,
  
  
• to give coverage to national and foreign medical congresses and other significant events in modern osteopathy.

The journal presents a unique clinical experience of practicing doctors and specialists. It publishes original articles, lectures and literature reviews, case reports, materials from scientific conferences and congresses. We are developing an interdisciplinary approach, highlighting current issues of pediatrics, neurology etc. We are doing our best to keep our readers informed about the achievements of modern osteopathic science and practice.

Section Policies

ORIGINAL ARTICLES

Open Submissions

Indexed

Peer Reviewed

CONTINUING MEDICAL EDUCATION

Open Submissions

Indexed

Peer Reviewed

REVIEWS

Open Submissions

Indexed

Peer Reviewed

DISCUSSIONS

Open Submissions

Indexed

Peer Reviewed

CASE REPORT

Open Submissions

Indexed

Peer Reviewed

OSTEOPATHY PERSONIFIED

Open Submissions

Indexed

Peer Reviewed

INFORMATION

Open Submissions

Indexed

Peer Reviewed

OSTEOPATHY ABROAD

Open Submissions

Indexed

Peer Reviewed

NEW IN SPECIALTY

Open Submissions

Indexed

Peer Reviewed

TELL US ABOUT YOURSELF

Open Submissions

Indexed

Peer Reviewed

OSTEOPHATY NEWS

Open Submissions

Indexed

Peer Reviewed

RECOMMENDED READING

Open Submissions

Indexed

Peer Reviewed

ISSUES OF OPHTHALMOLOGICAL CARE

Open Submissions

Indexed

Peer Reviewed

LECTURES

Open Submissions

Indexed

Peer Reviewed

НАШИ ЮБИЛЯРЫ

Open Submissions

Indexed

Peer Reviewed

CLINICAL GUIDELINES

Open Submissions

Indexed

Peer Reviewed

CONGRATULATIONS ON THE ANNIVERSARY

Open Submissions

Indexed

Peer Reviewed

LIFE OF THE REGIONS

Open Submissions

Indexed

Peer Reviewed

IN MEMORY OF THE SCIENTIST

Open Submissions

Indexed

Peer Reviewed

LETTER TO THE EDITOR

Open Submissions

Indexed

Peer Reviewed

Publication Frequency

A doubled number of the journal was issued twice a year till 2020. Since 2020 – 4 times a year.

Delayed Open Access

The contents of this journal will be available in an open access format 12 month(s) after an issue is published.

Archiving

• Russian State Library (RSL)
• National Electronic-Information Consortium (NEICON)

Peer-Review

Statement on the Reviewing Institute of the Scientific Journal 

«Russian Osteopathic Journal»

1. General Statements

1.1. This statement determines the procedure for reviewing manuscripts submitted to the editors of the Russian Osteopathic Journal.

1.2. Statement on the Reviewing Institute of the Scientific Journal "Russian Osteopathic Journal" is reviewed at a meeting of the editorial board and approved by the editor-in-chief.

2. Manuscript review process

2.1. All articles entering the editorial office of the journal pass through the reviewing institute within 4-6 weeks from the moment of registration in the editorial office. Materials with the headings "Osteopathy abroad (Reprint)", "Specialty news", "Osteopathy personified", "Tell us about yourself", "Obituary", "Anniversaries", as well as information messages, abstracts are not subject to review (only scientific editing).

2.2. As a rule, the reviewers of scientific articles are permanent members of the editorial board and / or editorial team of the journal. If the topic of the article requires experts in a particular field of medicine can be involved.

2.3. The reviewer is chosen by the editor-in-chief or his deputies. Articles (without the names of the authors and institutions where the research was done) are sent to reviewers. Articles should be accompanied by an official letter from the editorial office. Type of review – double-blind. The number of peer reviewers typically assigned to a manuscript is one.

2.4. Types of article reviewing:

2.4.1. Review in the editorial office of the scientific journal "Russian Osteopathic Journal" in accordance with the clauses 2.2 and 2.3 of this Statement.

2.5. The terms for writing reviews should be agreed with the reviewer, but should not exceed 4-6 weeks.

2.6. The review should disclose correspondence of the content of the article to the topic stated in the title, the relevance of the material presented; the degree of scientific novelty of the research; it should determine correspondence of the text proposed for publication to the general profile of the journal, the language norms and the information level of the presentation.

2.7. The reviewer makes a conclusion about the possibility of publishing the article: "recommended", "recommended if the reviewer’s comments are taken into account" or "not recommended".

2.8. If the review is positive, the article is presented at the meeting of the editorial board, and the decision about the publication is made.

2.9. If the review is negative, a reasoned refusal is sent to the author within ten days from the receipt of the review. At the same time, for ethical reasons, the reviewer’s name is not indicated.

2.10. If it is necessary to finalize the article (to make precisions, corrections, additions, etc.), a request to revise the article within 1-2 months (maximum 3 months from the date of sending the review) is sent to authors. After that, authors must return the revised article for re-review (to the reviewer who made comments).

2.11. If authors refuse to revise their article, they must notify the editorial office of their refusal to publish the article. If authors do not return the revised version after 3 months from the date of sending the review, the editorial office removes the manuscript from the register. A corresponding notice of the removal of the manuscript from the register due to the expiration of the time allotted for revision is sent to authors. The manuscripts are not returned.

2.12. If authors disagree with the reviewer’s opinion, the editorial office, may decide to send the article to another reviewer or several reviewers for re-review in order to obtain an impartial expert opinion at the authors’ request. In such situations, articles and reviews are subject to discussion at a meeting of the editorial board. Authors are informed about the decision within ten working days from the day of the meeting of the editorial board.

2.13. If there are comments on the second review (after the correction of the comments on the first review), authors may be asked to revise the article, which should take no longer than two months, and the revised article is again subject to review. If there are comments on the third review, the article is no longer subject to review, and the refusal for publication is sent to authors within ten days from the receipt of the review.

2.14. The editors have the right to make scientific and literary editing of the article.

2.15. If the editorial board makes a decision to accept the article for publication, the executive secretary informs the author about it and specifies the terms of publication.

2.16. The content of each issue of the journal is approved at the meeting of the editorial board, where the decision about the acceptance of articles for publication is made taking into account the reviewers’ opinion.

2.17. The original reviews are stored in the editorial office of the scientific journal "Russian Osteopathic Journal" for five years.

2.18. The review is provided to the author of the article or to the expert council of the Higher Attestation Commission without the reviewer’s signature, name, surname, patronymic, position and place of work upon the appropriate written request.

Indexation

Articles in “Russian Osteopathic Journal” 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.
• SCOPUS is Elsevier′s abstract and citation database.
• EBSCO Information Services is one of the leading provider of research databases, e-journals, magazine subscriptions, ebooks and discovery service.

Publishing Ethics

The Publication Ethics and Publication Malpractice Statement of the journal “Russian Osteopathic Journal” 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 behavior 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: “Russian Osteopathic Journal”

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 programs record «the minutes of science» and we recognize 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 “Russian Osteopathic Journal” 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 “Russian Osteopathic Journal” 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 “Russian Osteopathic Journal” 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 “Russian Osteopathic Journal” 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 (разделтолькодлямедицинскихжурналов)

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 "… … … …" (“Translation into English”) 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 “Russian Osteopathic Journal” 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 “Russian Osteopathic Journal” 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 specialized legal review and counsel if necessary.

Founder

• Limited Liability Company «Institute of Osteopathy and Holistic Medicine»

Author fees

Publication in “Russian Osteopathic Journal” is free of charge for all the authors.

The journal doesn't have any Arcticle processing charges.

The journal doesn't have any Article submission charges.

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.

Plagiarism detection

“Russian Osteopathic Journal” use native russian-language plagiarism detection software Antiplagiat to screen the submissions. If plagiarism is identified, the COPE guidelines on plagiarism will be followed.

Preprint and Postprint Deposition Policy

The editorial board of the Russian Osteopathic Journal allows authors to post the manuscript as a preprint before submission for review and to archive independently their articles in disciplinary and institutional repositories.

Preprints

The editorial board of the Russian Osteopathic Journal encourages uploading preprints on preprint servers. The Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) defines a preprint as 'a scholarly manuscript posted by the author(s) in an openly accessible platform, usually before or in parallel with the peer review process.' 

A preprint publication shall not be considered duplicate publication nor shall it influence the editor's decision to publish it in the Russian Osteopathic Journal.

The author must notify the editorial board of the Russian Osteopathic Journal about the posted preprint at submission of the manuscript for review, furnishing a link to the preprint with its DOI identifier and the dissemination terms and conditions.

It is the author’s responsibility to add a link to the published manuscript in the preprint record. The link must contain the DOI and the URL of the article published on the journal's website. The original preprint should not be modified based on the reviewer’s and editor’s comments. The preprint should not be replaced with the text of the published article.

Do not delete the preprint text.

Manuscripts Accepted for Publication

The editorial board of the Russian Osteopathic Journal allows manuscripts that have been reviewed and are accepted for publication to be archived independently.

 This version of the manuscript may be disseminated through:

• personal website or blog;
• institutional repository;
• disciplinary repository;
• direct interactions with faculty or students by providing this version of the manuscript for personal use.

The text of the manuscript should contain the author’s clarifications about its status and information about the planned publication.

Example: The ARTICLE TITLE has been reviewed, accepted for publication, and will be published in 2021 (3) of the Russian Osteopathic Journal.

Once the final version of the manuscript is published, it is the author’s responsibility to add a link to the published article to the publication record. The posted text should not be modified based on the reviewer’s and editor’s comments. Do not replace the text of the posted manuscript. Do not delete the text of the posted manuscript.

Final Versions of Manuscripts

The editorial board of the Russian Osteopathic Journal allows manuscripts that have been peer-reviewed, accepted for publication, edited and ready for publication (proofread and typeset) to be archived independently.

 This version of the manuscript may be disseminated through:

• personal website or blog;
• institutional repository;
• disciplinary repository;
• direct interactions with faculty or students by providing this version of the manuscript for personal use.

Once the final version of the manuscript is published, it is the author’s responsibility to add a link to the published article to the publication record. The posted text should not be modified based on the reviewer’s and editor’s comments. Do not replace the text of the posted manuscript. Do not delete the text of the posted manuscript

Conflict of Interest Policy

A conflict of interest is a condition in which people have conflicting or competing interests that can influence editorial decisions. Conflicts of interest can be potential or perceived, as well as real. Objectivity can be influenced by personal, political, financial, scientific, or religious factors.

The author is obliged to notify the editor of a real or potential conflict of interest by including information about the conflict of interest in the appropriate section of the article.

If there is no conflict of interest, the author must also report it. An example of the wording: "The authors declare no obvious and potential conflicts of interest related to the publication of this article."

Principles on informed consent

The  "Russian Osteopathic Journal" relies on the principles of the World Medical Association's (WMA) policy statement - the Declaration of Helsinki - a statement of Ethical Principles for Medical Research Involving Human Subjects) and endeavours to ensure compliance with ethical and data collection standards for research involving human subjects. Before beginning research, the researchers should familiarise themselves with the principles of the Helsinki Declaration on informed consent and carry out the research in strict accordance with those principles as set forth below (Articles 25-32 of the Helsinki Declaration are given):

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/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 his right to refuse to participate in the study or to withdraw his 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 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, verbal consent must be formally documented and witnessed.

All medical 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 when 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 his legally authorised 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 minimal risk and burden.

 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 authorised 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 authorised 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 authorised 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 should 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 exceptions where consent would be impossible or impractical to obtain for such research. In such situations, the research may be done only after consideration and approval of a research ethics committee.

Human Rights Policy

When presenting the results of experimental research involving human subjects, the authors should indicate whether the procedures performed adhered to the ethical standards prescribed in the Declaration of Helsinki. If the study was conducted without adherence to the principles of the Declaration, the authors should justify the chosen approach to the study and guarantee that the ethics committee of the organization in which the study was conducted approved the chosen approach.

Animal Rights Policy

When conducting experimental research on animals, the authors must indicate compliance with institutional and national standards for the use of laboratory animals, taking into account CONSENSUS AUTHOR GUIDELINES FOR ANIMAL USE: http://www.veteditors.org/consensus-author-guidelines-on-animal-ethics-and-welfare-for-editors

Advertising Policy in the Russian Osteopathic Journal

Advertisers and sponsors do not have control over the decisions of the editorial board, regardless of the terms of placement of advertising materials or other agreements. The decisions of the editorial board do not depend on the cost of advertising materials placing. The functions of editor and advertising manager in the journal are separate.

All advertising materials must uniquely identify the advertiser and the offered product or service. Advertising materials must not be deceiving or misleading. Advertising materials must not exaggerate the actual characteristics of the advertised product or service. Advertising materials must not contain offensive considerations of a religious, racial, or political nature. The advertised product or service must be focused on medical practice, medical education, or health care delivery.

Advertising material is not displayed adjacent to any editorial article or article that discusses the advertised product. The advertising materials do not contain links to the issue of the magazine in which they are posted. Advertising materials differ from editorial and other materials in such a way that the difference between them is obvious.

The journal has the right to refuse to post any advertising material for any reason. The decision to publish advertising material can only be made with the participation of the editor-in-chief and the editorial board of the journal.

Data sharing policy

Authors are encouraged to make the research data that support their publications available but are not required to do so. The decision to publish will not be affected by whether or not authors share their research data.

Definition of research data

This policy applies to the research data that would be required to verify the results of research reported in articles published in the journal “Russian Osteopathic Journal”. Research data include data produced by the authors (“primary data”) and data from other sources that are analyzed by authors in their study (“secondary data”). Research data includes any recorded factual materials that are used to produce the results in digital and non-digital form. This includes tabular data, code, images, audio, documents, video, maps, raw and/or processed data.

Definition of exceptions

The data that is not a subject to public disclosure may be delivered as follows: deposited in science data repositories with limited access or preliminary anonymized. An author can also publicly deliver metadata only and/or description of the method of access to the data under requests from other scholars.

Data repositories

The preferred mechanism for sharing research data is via data repositories. Please see or https://repositoryfinder.datacite.org/ for help finding research data repositories.

Data citation

The Editorial Board of the journal “Russian Osteopathic Journa”l welcomes access to data under Creative Commons Licenses. Editorial Board of the journal “Russian Osteopathic Journal” does not insist on the obligatory use of Creative Commons in case when the data is deposited in the repositories of the third party. The Publisher of the journal “Russian Osteopathic Journal” does not assert any copyrights for the data submitted by the author together with the article.

Questions regarding the observation of that policy shall be sent to the executive secretary of the journal “Russian Osteopathic Journal”.

CrossMark policy

CrossMark is a multi-publisher initiative from Crossref, provides a standard way for readers to locate the authoritative version of an article or other published content. By applying the CrossMark logo, journal "Russian Osteopathic Journal" is committing to maintaining the content it publishes and to alerting readers to changes if and when they occur.

Clicking the CrossMark logo on a document will tell you its current status and may also give you additional publication-record information about the document.