The journal "Vestnik MINO" is a peer-reviewed scientific and practical journal, therefore, when preparing an article, the requirements for ensuring double-blind peer review must be met.

The title page must contain:

Type of article (review, systematic review, clinical practice guidelines, clinical case, meta-analysis, original study, etc.). If the article is a dissertation, then indicate this.

UDC You can use the address to verify UDC http://teacode.com/online/udc/

1. TITLE OF THE ARTICLE (IN CAPITAL LETTERS). (FOR TITLE USE FONT - 14 Times New Roman CAPITAL)
2. INFORMATION ABOUT THE AUTHORS:
   Full name, academic degree and title, place of work (study) and position held, mobile or work phone number, organization address, e-mail (required) of all authors;
   ORCID (required) of all authors, eLIBRARY SPIN code: 7078-8406 (required) of all authors, eLIBRARY AuthorID: 629576 (required) of all authors, preferably Researcher ID, preferably Scopus ID.
3. RESPONSIBLE FOR PUBLICATION:
   You should indicate the last name, first name, patronymic of the author (contact person) with whom the editors will correspond, his email address (if any), contact phone number or postal address.
4. INFORMATION ABOUT SOURCES OF FINANCING
5. AUTHOR'S CONTRIBUTION OF EACH AUTHOR

The manuscript should be structured as follows:

UDC

Article type

Rules for formatting all types of articles

The editors of the journal “Bulletin of the Medical Institute of Continuing Education” adhere to two review circles. All articles sent to the editor initially undergo an anonymous internal and external review process.

Articles are assessed according to the following criteria:

• originality
• scientific relevance
• relevance of the selected research methods
• interpretation of research results
• bibliography

The editors provide a double (by specialty and by the reliability of the research results) independent expert assessment of manuscripts. Articles submitted to the editors of the journal “Bulletin of the Medical Institute of Continuing Education” must comply with the profile of the Journal and the rules for submitting manuscripts by the authors.

All scientific articles submitted to the editorial office of the journal undergo mandatory blind reviewing (the reviewer does not know the authors of the manuscript, the authors of the manuscript do not know the reviewers).

The review procedure includes the following steps:

1. Internal review.
   An examination of the article by the scientific editor of the journal is carried out to determine whether the article meets the basic requirements for manuscripts:
   • All articles received by the editor are checked using the Anti-Plagiarism system for the presence of borrowings.
   • The manuscript of a scientific article received by the editorial office of the journal is examined for compliance with the subject of the journal and the requirements for its design, registered and sent for review to two reviewers for the purpose of their expert assessment.
2. External review.
   The journal "Bulletin of the Medical Institute of Continuing Education" has adopted a double-blind review format. The choice of two independent experts is determined by the editor-in-chief, scientific editor and members of the editorial board, taking into account the thematic focus of the submitted materials.

Reviewing of articles is carried out on a voluntary and free basis.

Independent experts are selected from among persons who have an academic degree of at least a candidate of medical sciences and who do not have scientific financial or any other relationships with the authors of the article and the editors of the journal.

Reviewing of articles is carried out both by members of the editorial board and by invited reviewers - leading experts in the relevant field of medicine in Russia and other countries.

The reviewer cannot be the author or co-author of the work being reviewed, as well as the scientific supervisors of applicants for an academic degree and employees of the department in which the author/co-authors of the article work.

The review procedure is confidential. Reviewers are notified that manuscripts submitted for review are the intellectual property of the authors and are classified as non-disclosure information. Reviewers are not permitted to use manuscripts for their own purposes. Violation of anonymity and confidentiality is possible only in the event of a statement about the unreliability or falsification of materials. Unpublished data obtained from submitted manuscripts may not be used.

The review is compiled according to the standard form proposed by the editors with the obligatory coverage of the following provisions:

• relevance of the presented article;
• scientific novelty of the research direction discussed in the article;
• practical significance of the problem posed and/or the results obtained in the field of knowledge under consideration;
• adequacy and modernity of research methods;
• sufficiency and information content of the research material;
• correctness and completeness of discussion of the results obtained;
• compliance of the conclusions with the purpose and objectives of the study;
• admissibility of the volume of the manuscript as a whole and its individual elements (text, tables, illustrative material, bibliographic references);
• adequacy, quality and expediency of placing tables, illustrative material in the article and their compliance with the topic being presented;
• quality of the article’s design: style of presentation, adequacy of terminology and its compliance with that accepted in the field of knowledge under consideration.

The reviewer is obliged to give an objective assessment of the manuscript. Personal comments to the author(s) are unacceptable. The reviewer must clearly and reasonably express his opinion.

The reviewer should, whenever possible, identify significant published work relevant to the topic and relevant to the manuscript being reviewed that is not included in the bibliography of the manuscript. Any statement in a review that some observation, conclusion, or argument from the reviewed manuscript has previously been found in the literature must be accompanied by an accurate bibliographic reference. The reviewer should bring to the attention of the editor-in-chief any significant similarity or overlap between the manuscript under review and any other previously published work.

The review period is 30 days, but at the request of the reviewer it can be extended.

Based on the results of consideration of the manuscript, the reviewer makes recommendations on the further fate of the article (each decision of the reviewer is justified):

• the article is recommended for publication in its present form;
• the article is recommended for publication after correction of the shortcomings noted by the reviewer;
• the article needs additional review by another specialist;
• the article cannot be published in the journal;

The procedure for informing authors about the results of the review.

Based on the results of the review, the article can either be rejected, sent to the authors for revision, or accepted for publication. If the review contains recommendations for correcting and finalizing the article, the editors of the journal send the text of the review to the author with a proposal to take them into account when preparing a new version of the article or to refute them with reason (partially or completely). Revision of the article should not take more than 2 months from the date of sending an email to the authors about the need to make changes. The article revised by the author is re-submitted for review.

If the authors refuse to revise the materials, they must notify the editors of their refusal to publish the article. If the authors do not return the revised version after 3 months from the date of sending the review, even in the absence of information from the authors refusing to revise the article, the editors will remove it from the register. In such situations, the authors are sent a corresponding notification about the removal of the manuscript from registration due to the expiration of the period allotted for revision.

If the author and reviewers have irresolvable contradictions regarding the manuscript, the editorial board has the right to send the manuscript for additional review. In conflict situations, the decision is made by the editor-in-chief at a meeting of the editorial board.

The following are not accepted for publication:

• articles that do not meet the journal's requirements for manuscripts; If the authors refuse to technically refine the manuscript, the articles may be rejected without an external review procedure.
• articles whose authors do not comply with reviewers’ comments without providing a reasoned answer

The decision to refuse to publish a manuscript is made at a meeting of the editorial board in accordance with the recommendations of the reviewers. An article not recommended for publication by the decision of the editorial board will not be accepted for re-consideration. A notice of refusal to publish is sent to the author by email.

After the editorial board of the journal makes a decision to accept the article for publication, the editors inform the author about this and indicate the publication time frame.

The presence of a positive review is not a sufficient basis for publishing an article. The final decision on publication is made by the editorial board. In conflict situations, the decision is made by the editor-in-chief.

The original reviews are kept in the editorial office of the journal for 5 years. When the editorial office receives a corresponding request, copies of reviews are sent to the Ministry of Education and Science of the Russian Federation.