Aim and Scope

Latest updates: 17.12.2020

Russian Ophthalmological Journal is a major Russian periodical for ophthalmologists and vision professionals in this country and abroad.

The journal’s objective is to publish new results and scientific and practical achievements of Russian and international ophthalmological community aimed at exchanging ideas, knowledge, and experience, which contribute to the solution of topical ophthalmological issues worldwide.

Russian ophthalmological journal focuses on the contribution of Russian researchers and clinicians into the pathogenetic studies of eye diseases and the development of novel approaches to diagnosis and treatment of such diseases. Importantly, the journal is an open forum for ophthalmologists from foreign countries working in the ophthalmological field.

The editorial board of the Russian ophthalmological journal makes every effort to ensure that the latest advances in international ophthalmological science are introduced into effective clinical practice as quickly as possible, so that modern high technologies of diagnosing and treating eye diseases become known and accessible to any ophthalmological centers, clinics and hospitals even if they operate very far from capital cities in Russia and abroad.

The Russian Ophthalmological Journal is widely and freely distributed among Russian ophthalmologists, so that it is easily accessible to anyone interested in the field.

The Russian Ophthalmological Journal website provides open access to all articles and complete issues since 2008, when the first issue was published.

The journal accepts for publication original articles, including analytical reviews, clinical studies, descriptions of clinical cases, results of experimental and laboratory studies, statistical analysis, papers focusing on ophthalmological care organization, essays on the history of ophthalmology.

Articles on any topics of visual science are welcome: pediatric ophthalmology, interaction of ophthalmology with other branches of medicine and fundamental disciplines, including biochemistry, pathological physiology, oncology, genetics (including molecular genetics), electrophysiology, biomechanics, immunology, morphology, cytology, etc. Contributions are accepted from specialists and experts in the field, as well as from younger ophthalmologists - graduate and PhD students.

The Russian Ophthalmological Journal accepts the materials of regional, national and international character. The Editorial Council and the Editorial Board include distinguished scholars from Russia and foreign countries, in particular, Damian Czepita (Poland), Carl Erb (Germany), Paul T. Finger (USA), Carl P.Herbort (Switzerland), Ralph Michel (Spain), Frederik Raiskup (Germany), Helmut Sachs (Germany), Leopold Schmetterer (Austria), James Wolffsohn (United Kingdom). These scholars contribute to a high level of reviewing of the submitted papers and make sure that the papers conform to the international standards of research in the respective domain of ophthalmology.

Section Policies

LEADING ARTICLE

Open Submissions

Indexed

Peer Reviewed

CLINICAL STUDIES

Open Submissions

Indexed

Peer Reviewed

EXPERIMENTAL AND LABORATORY STUDIES

Open Submissions

Indexed

Peer Reviewed

DISCUSSIONS OF TOPICAL ISSUES

Open Submissions

Indexed

Peer Reviewed

FOR OPHTHALMOLOGY PRACTITIONERS

Open Submissions

Indexed

Peer Reviewed

REVIEWS

Open Submissions

Indexed

Peer Reviewed

HISTORY OF OPHTHALMOLOGY

Open Submissions

Indexed

Peer Reviewed

MATERIALS OF A SCIENTIFIC AND PRACTICAL CONFERENCE

Open Submissions

Indexed

Peer Reviewed

CONGRATULATIONS

Open Submissions

Indexed

Peer Reviewed

INVITING DISCUSSIONS

Open Submissions

Indexed

Peer Reviewed

INVITING DISCUSSIONS

Open Submissions

Indexed

Peer Reviewed

Publication Frequency

4 times a year

Open Access Policy

"Russian Ophthalmological Journal” 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.

Archiving

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

Peer-Review

Latest updates: 17.12.2020

1. All scientific manuscripts submitted to the Russian Ophthalmological Journal are peer reviewed. Normally, the single-blind peer review method is applied, which means that the author has no contact with the reviewer, who remains anonymous for the submitter. Upon the submitter’s request, double-blind reviewing can be arranged, so that the reviewer receives no information on the author’s identity, either.

2. The Russian Ophthalmological Journal makes the decision on the publication of the manuscript on the basis of at least three reviews.

3. Peer reviewers are chosen by the editor-in-chief, deputy editor-in chief, or the scientific editor from the members of the Journal’s editorial board or the leading Russian and international experts in the respective fields of ophthalmological science.

4. The author or a co-author of the manuscript, academic advisors (consultants) for academic degree applicants or a colleague working in the same department as the author cannot act as peer reviewer.

5. Reviewers are not allowed to ask a third person to review the manuscript or part thereof without the permission of the editors. Reviewers may not share the content of the reviewed paper before its publication.

6. The reviewer is expected to complete the review process within 4 weeks, though in some cases the deadline may be extended at the reviewer’s request.

7. The reviewer should reject the proposal to review a manuscript in the case of a conflict of interests which may affect the objective assessment of the material to be considered.

8. The peer review is expected to objectively evaluate the scientific article and must contain a comprehensive analysis of its scientific and methodological advantages and deficiencies. The review is written in free form, with the mandatory coverage of the following issues:

– Relevance (brief substantiation of the conditions that justify the problem statement and its solution);

– Scientific novelty (a brief description of new scientific result or results obtained by the author);

– Theoretical and practical significance (what exactly is obtained by the author(s) and how it can be applied and implemented in practice);

– Adequacy and up-to-datedness of research methods and statistical processing of materials;

– Sufficient amount of material used in the study;

– Correctness and consistency of the discussion of the results obtained;

– Compliance of the conclusion with the objectives and tasks of the study;

– Elaboration quality of literary sources (the extent in which the references reflect the current level of the research topic);

– Overall quality of the paper: style, terminology, readability, compliance with the submission rules specified by the Journal.

The conclusive part of the peer review contains a substantiated opinion of the manuscript as a whole and a clear recommendation as to whether the manuscript should be approved for publication, rejected, or requires revision.

9. Specific recommendations of the reviewer may be as follows:

- to accept the paper in its present state;

- to ask the author(s) to revise their manuscript, addressing specific issues, after which the paper may be accepted following a second reading by the reviewer;

- to recommend sending the manuscript for an additional review;

- to reject the manuscript.

In the latter case, the reviewer is expected to explain their decision by pointing to the deficiencies or errors made by the author and offer recommendations for an improvement of the manuscript.

10. If the reviewer has suggested any corrections, the editor asks the author either to implement them or to provide convincing arguments why this should not be done. The authors are required to complete the revision within 2 months and re-submit the corrected manuscript for final evaluation. The updated version of the manuscript is sent for a second review.

11. We kindly ask the author to notify the editors, verbally or in writing, should they choose to retract the manuscript from publication after receiving the review. If the author fails to do so within 3 months of receiving the review, the editorial board terminates the processing of the submission and notifies the author accordingly.

12. If the author and the reviewer are unable to come to an agreement on the revision of the manuscript, the editor may decide to send it to an additional reviewer. In the case of a serious conflict, the final decision is made by the editor-in-chief at their own discretion.

13. The editorial board holds a meeting to reach the decision to reject a manuscript in accordance with the reviewers’ recommendation, and duly notifies the authors of their decision via e-mail. The editorial board does not accept the rejected manuscripts for re-evaluation.

14. Upon the decision to accept the manuscript for publication, the editor notifies the author(s) of the scheduled date of publication.

15. It should be noted that a positive review alone does not guarantee the acceptance of the manuscript for publication. In all cases, the final decision is made by the editorial board. In case of a conflict, the editor-in-chief rules the final solution at their discretion.

16. The reviews of the submitted manuscripts are stored with the editorial office for 5 years.

17. The editorial board sends copies of the reviews to the Ministry of Science and Higher Education of Russia upon their request.

PDF form with mandatory positions for reviewer to evaluate the manuscript.

Indexation

Latest updates: 17.12.2020

Articles in "Russian Ophthalmological 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.

Publishing Ethics

Latest updates: 17.12.2020

The Publication Ethics and Publication Malpractice Statement of the "Russian Ophthalmological 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 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: "Russian Ophthalmological 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 programmes 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 Ophthalmological 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 Ophthalmological 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 Ophthalmological 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 Ophthalmological 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

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 "Russian Ophthalmological Journal” 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 Ophthalmological 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 Ophthalmological 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 specialised legal review and counsel if necessary.

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/). 

Founder

• Vladimir Neroev (certificate of mass media registration ПИ №ФС 77-29898)

Author fees

Latest updates: 17.12.2020

Publication in "Russian Ophthalmological 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

Latest updates: 17.12.2020

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

Latest updates: 17.12.2020

"Russian Ophthalmological 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 Policy

Latest updates: 17.12.2020

Prior to acceptance and publication in "Russian Ophthalmological Journal”, authors may make their submissions available as preprints on personal or public websites.

As part of submission process, authors are required to confirm that the submission has not been previously published, nor has been submitted. After a manuscript has been published in "Russian Ophthalmological Journal” we suggest that the link to the article on journal's website is used when the article is shared on personal or public websites.

Glossary (by SHERPA)

Principles on informed consent

Latest updates: 17.12.2020

The journal "Russian Ophthalmological 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

Animal Rights Policy

Latest updates: 17.12.2020

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

Advertising policy

Latest updates: 17.12.2020

Should you wish to place promotional materials in the printed version of the "Russian Ophthalmological Journal” or on its website, please contact the advertising manager Ms. Olga Kharlanova by phone +7 (901) 546-50-70 or by email 9725070@mail.ru.

WE WILL ALWAYS FIND A MUTUALLY ACCEPTABLE SOLUTION! 

The advertising policy of the Russian Ophthalmological Journal complies with the Recommendations on Publication Ethics Policies for Medical Journals by the World Association of Medical Editors (WAME).

To exclude any potential conflict of interest when placing advertising modules or scientific and practical papers prepared with the financial support of commercial organizations, the editors strictly adhere to the following rules.

Editors' decisions do not depend on the cost of advertising or printing offprints. The functions of the editor, job responsibilities of the editor and the advertising manager of the Journal are strictly separated. Advertisers or sponsors cannot influence the editor’s decisions, regardless of advertising conditions or any other agreements.

The offprints are printed only in the form in which they were originally published in the journa, so no additions or changes could be allowed.

The content of special issues (if published additionally) is regulated only by editorial decisions. Neither sponsors nor advertisers can influence this content.

The size of promotional materials in ROJ issues is limited. All articles prepared with the support of an advertiser are peer-reviewed by experts according to the standard procedure adopted in the journal.

All advertisements must unambiguously identify the advertiser and the product or service offered. In advertising medications, the full name of each active ingredient must be indicated.

Commercial advertising cannot be placed next to any editorial or an article that discusses the advertised product. Neither should such advertising contain references to the issue of the journal in which it is published.

Advertising content should be different from editorial and other materials so that the difference between them is obvious.

Advertising must not be deceiving or misleading. Advertising should not exaggerate the actual characteristics of the advertised product. Advertising should not contain offensive material of a religious, racial, or ethnic nature.

Advertised products should be focused on ophthalmic practice, special (ophthalmological) education or the provision of ophthalmic care.

The Russian Ophthalmological Journal reserves the right to reject the publication of any advertisement for any reason. The decision to publish advertising is taken only with the participation of the editors of the journal.

Data sharing policy

Latest updates: 17.12.2020

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 Russian Ophthalmological Journal. Research data include data produced by the authors (“primary data”) and data from other sources that are analysed 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 anonymised. 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 Russian Ophthalmological Journal welcomes access to data under Creative Commons Licenses. Editorial Board of the Russian Ophthalmological 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 Russian Ophthalmological 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 Russian Ophthalmological Journal (roj@igb.ru).

Patient’s consent form

Latest updates: 17.12.2020

Patient’s consent form

CrossMark

Latest updates: 17.12.2020

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, "Russian Ophthalmological 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.

Policy on the Use of Artificial Intelligence in Russian Ophthalmological Journal

Effective date: 07.06.2026
Last updated: 07.06.2026

The Use of AI Tools in the Publications of Russian Ophthalmological Journal

We welcome the responsible and transparent use of artificial intelligence (AI) in scientific medical research and the preparation of manuscripts for Russian Ophthalmological Journal. AI can be a powerful tool to improve the quality and efficiency of your work.

We are committed to maintaining scientific integrity and encourage authors, reviewers, and editors to use AI as an aid, not as a substitute for critical thinking and ethical practices.

AI Use Policy for Authors of Russian Ophthalmological Journal

Key principles for authors when preparing a manuscript using AI

• Copyright: Authors are always solely responsible for the content of their manuscript, including any information generated or processed by AI.
• Transparency: It's important to be sure to specify where and how AI tools have been used (e.g., for data analysis, writing, image creation, etc.).
• Ethics and accuracy: It are important to ensure that the AI does not generate false or incorrect information (hallucinations), it is important to check all facts and references.
• Data privacy: It is not recommended to upload sensitive information, patient data, or any other protected information to public AI tools.

Acceptable uses of AI by authors

• Language and style improvements:Paraphrasing, readability improvements, grammar and spelling checks (but not body text generation).

• Synthesis and generalization of information: Assistance in reviewing literature, systematizing data.
• Data Analysis: The application of AI algorithms for processing and analyzing large data sets, pattern recognition, if the methodology of such analysis is clearly described.
• Visual creation: Assistance in creating graphs, charts, images (with mandatory indication that AI was used, and confirmation of the originality of the data).

Restrictions and prohibitions for authors

General principles

• AI should not replace professional expertise. The use of any AI tools (including generative language models, image processing models, analytical and optimization algorithms) does not relieve the authors of responsibility for the reliability, scientific validity and ethics of the presented data, methods and conclusions.
• Authors are required to disclose the use of AI in a transparent manner (see the separate section "Disclosure of AI Use"). Failure to comply with disclosure requirements may be considered a violation of publication ethics.

Prohibited Practices

1. Passive or covert generation of scientific content

• You may not present as your own original work any text, data, analysis, or interpretation generated in whole or in part by the AI, without explicitly and in detail disclosing the roles and contributions of the AI.
• It is forbidden to pass off AI as an author. Only human authors can be listed as authors. The AI should not be listed as the co-author, editor, or content owner.

2. Fabrication and falsification of data through AI

• It is strictly forbidden to use AI to create fictitious clinical data, falsify the results of experiments, simulated patients, or generate "fake" data sets that are passed off as real.
• Any synthetic or modelled data should be explicitly labeled, detailed in the methods, and justified with limitations. If synthetic data is used to train models, this should be disclosed and supported by the availability of source codes/settings for verification.

3. Manipulating Medical Research Images

• Automatic or manual modification of clinical images (e.g., X-rays, CT scans, MRIs, microscopic images) to distort the clinical picture or results is prohibited unless such alterations are described, justified, and approved by appropriate proprietary and institutional procedures.
• Modified images must be accompanied by a statement about the type of changes (contrast correction, noise reduction, restoration, etc.), tools, parameters, and justification. It is forbidden to remove or add pathological signs using AI.

4. Violation of the confidentiality and security of personal data

• Do not upload personally identifiable medical data (PII) or other sensitive patient data to cloud or third-party AI services without explicit patient consent and without complying with data protection laws.
• It is forbidden to use AI services with an unknown data retention/use policy to process sensitive information. Authors should choose tools with documented security guarantees and/or apply depersonalization confirmed by the methodology.

5. Copyright infringement and plagiarism with AI

• You may not use AI to automatically compile copyrighted text, graphics, or images without appropriate rights or citations. Generating a text that is clearly based on someone else's work, without indicating the sources, is considered plagiarism.
• When using AI to retrieve, summarize, or translate someone else's publications, you need to ensure that they are quoted correctly and that fair use rules are followed.

6. Uncontrolled withdrawal and medical advice

• You may not publish clinical guidelines, diagnostic conclusions, or therapeutic decisions that are fully AI-generated without validation by qualified professionals and without specifying the limitations of the model. Any claims of impact on patient care should be based on clinical evidence and peer review.
• Do not use AI-generated scenarios, recommendations, or predictions to support claims about the benefits or safety of interventions without adequate evidence and verification.

7. Mass automation of submission and manipulation of the review system

• It is forbidden to use AI for mass automated submission of manuscripts, falsification of reviewers' reviews, creation of fictitious accounts of reviewers, or other actions aimed at circumventing review procedures.
• Authors and reviewers should not use automated means to create false or misleading reviews and comments.

8. Limitations on methodology and reproducibility

• All AI models used to analyze or generate results should be described in detail: architecture (if relevant), model version, hyperparameters, training data sources, validation procedures, metrics applied, and code/scripts to reproduce the results, or a link to the repository.
• If commercial or closed models have been used, authors should provide access to inputs, seed values, and generation parameters whenever possible to ensure reproducibility. If this is not possible under the license, the restrictions should be described in detail and alternative ways of verifying the results should be given.

9. Liability and consequences of violations

• Violation of these restrictions may lead to a request for corrections, expression of doubt on publication, retraction of the article, imposition of a ban on the submission of new manuscripts and notification of the author's institution for investigation.
• In cases of data falsification, serious breaches of confidentiality or fraud, the journal reserves the right to transfer materials to the appropriate regulatory authorities.

Disclosure of Authors' Use of AI

• Authors are required to clearly and in detail indicate the use of AI tools at all stages of manuscript preparation, including:
• text generation (including parts of the introduction, discussion, conclusions or annotations);
• preparing or validating data, including statistical analysis, visualization, or data synthesis;
• preparing translations, paraphrasing or editing the text;
• searching for literature or compiling reference lists;
• creating or processing images, graphs, diagrams, audio and video materials.
• The use of AI is indicated in the "Methods" section (for research articles) or in the special section "Statement on the use of AI" (for other types of articles, e.g. reviews, clinical cases).
• For each mentioned use, it is necessary to indicate:
• Name of the AI tool(s) and its version.
• Tool manufacturer (if applicable).
• The specific purpose and use of AI (e.g., "AI tool X was used for stylistic text editing", "Program Y was used for primary categorization of data", "ChatGPT-4 was used to generate introduction suggestions, which were then refined by the authors").
• Any prompts (requests) that have had a significant impact on the generated content (if possible).

Best practices for safe use of AI by creators

• When processing medical data, it is important to give preference to on-premise or certified solutions that provide control over the data.
• Anonymize data to recognized standards and document the anonymization process.
• Save logs of interactions with AI tools, including prompts, generation parameters, and responses received, so that they can be made available at the request of editors or reviewers.
• Carefully check all facts, references, figures, and conclusions generated by AI, as AI models can "hallucinate" (create false but plausible information).

Exceptions: The use of basic grammar and spelling checking tools (such as Microsoft Word spell-check) that are not based on generative AI does not require mandatory disclosure.

AI Use Policy for Reviewers of Russian Ophthalmological Journal

• This policy establishes recommendations and requirements for the use of AI tools by reviewers who evaluate manuscripts for Russian Ophthalmological Journal. The goal is to ensure transparency, protect confidentiality, and maintain scientific integrity when integrating AI into the peer review process.
• The policy applies to all external and internal reviewers involved in the peer review of manuscripts (scientific articles, reviews, clinical cases, etc.), as well as to editorial staff who use AI in the preparation of recommendations for reviews.

General principles

• Peer review should remain professional, independent and based on the expert knowledge of the individual. AI tools can only be used as an aid; Final judgments and recommendations must be made by a human reviewer. The reviewer is responsible for the completeness, accuracy and ethics of the review.

Permitted use of AI by reviewers

• Assistance in clarifying the wording, style and structure of the text of the review (formatting, grammar), provided that the content of the assessment and scientific criticism are formulated by the reviewer.
• Quickly search and summarize publicly available information (e.g., extracting key facts from non-specialist sources), as long as it does not compromise the confidentiality of the manuscript.
• Automatic verification of references, citations, and basic formal aspects (e.g., journal compliance), subject to human review.
• Use of specific AI tools designed to assist in methodological evaluation (e.g., statistical verification) only if the tool is certified/clearly described and the results are validated by an independent reviewer's expertise.

Prohibited use of AI by reviewers

• No content of the manuscript (texts, data, figures, tables, unsolicited additional materials) should be entered into public or cloud AI services without the explicit permission of the editorial board and compliance with confidentiality rules.
• Using AI to automatically generate full-fledged reviews, conclusions about scientific merit, or recommendations without significant and critical scrutiny by a human reviewer.
• Using AI tools that save or index uploaded materials and can use them to train models if it violates privacy or copyright.
• Transfer of confidential, unpublished information about the manuscript to third parties through AI services.

Confidentiality and Reviewers' Work with Manuscript Data

• Manuscripts are kept strictly confidential; The reviewer is obliged to comply with the journal's policy regarding the non-distribution of materials.
• Before using any AI service, the reviewer should check the terms of service and data handling policies. If a service stores/uses the uploaded data to train models or has undefined storage practices, such a service cannot be used to process parts of the manuscript.
• If it is necessary to use AI to process the text of the manuscript (for example, summarizing), the reviewer must obtain the consent of the editorial board. Editors may require the use of internal or certified tools with a guarantee of confidentiality.
• Any intermediate files, notes, or conclusions generated by AI and containing manuscript elements must be retained and disposed of in accordance with the journal's data retention policy.

Disclosure of reviewers' use of AI

• If in the process of preparing the review, the reviewer used AI to analyze the manuscript (except for proofreading/grammar), this should be indicated in the accompanying note to the editorial board when sending the review. Provide a name for the tool and briefly describe the nature of the features used (e.g., "method summation," "statistical test validation," "review text reformulation").
• Disclosure is also required if the results of the AI have significantly influenced value judgments or recommendations (e.g., a conclusion about the incorrectness of the analysis proposed by the AI).
• Disclosure does not imply the transfer of the contents of the manuscript to third parties. It is necessary for transparency and so that the editorial board can assess the appropriateness and safety of using the tools used.

Quality and Validation

• It is the responsibility of the reviewer to critically evaluate the conclusions proposed by the AI. The tool is not a substitute for peer review, especially on study design, statistical correctness, interpretation of clinical data, and conclusions with implications for patients.
• When using AI to validate stats or images, the reviewer should document the review method and, if necessary, include explanations in the review.

Conflicts of interest

• The use of AI developed by a commercial organization in which the reviewer has a financial interest or other connections should be disclosed in accordance with the journal's conflicts of interest disclosure policy.

Consequences of non-compliance

• Violation of this policy (e.g., disclosure of a manuscript through an unverified AI service) is considered a serious violation of confidentiality and may result in disciplinary action by the editorial board, including revocation of the right to review and notification of relevant institutions in case of serious violations.

Note to reviewers

AI is a useful tool, but it is not a substitute for professional expertise. Comply with privacy requirements and disclose the use of AI to maintain the trust of authors, reviewers, and readers.

AI Use Policy for Editors of Russian Ophthalmological Journal

• This AI Policy is designed to ensure the responsible, ethical and transparent use of artificial intelligence (AI) technologies by editors of Russian Ophthalmological Journal. We recognize the potential of AI to improve the efficiency of editorial processes, but emphasize the need to preserve academic integrity, confidentiality, and professional judgment.
• This Policy applies to all editors (editors-in-chief, deputy editors, members of the editorial boards, executive editors and everyone who participates in editorial decision-making) of Russian Ophthalmological Journal.

1. Basic principles of using AI by editors

• Responsibility: Editors are solely responsible for all editorial decisions made with or without the use of AI. AI is a tool to support, not replace, human judgment.
• Transparency: The use of AI in critical editorial processes should be documented and, if necessary, disclosed.
• Ethics: The use of AI should not violate the ethical standards of scientific publications, including the principles of authorship, plagiarism, confidentiality, conflict of interest, and integrity of research.
• Privacy: Confidential manuscripts or information should never be uploaded to publicly available AI tools that do not guarantee data privacy and do not comply with personal data protection requirements or other applicable data protection regulations.
• Reliability and verification: Any results obtained with the help of AI must be carefully checked and confirmed by an editor. AI can generate inaccurate, biased, or outdated data.
• Non-bias: Editors should be alert to potential bias in AI algorithms and ensure that the use of AI does not discriminate against or treat authors unfairly.

2. Allowed use of AI by editors (with restrictions and mandatory verification)

• Grammar, spelling, and stylistics checking:Use AI to improve the readability of the manuscript text or accompanying materials.

• Translation: Assistance in translating the text if the manuscript is submitted in a language other than the working language of the journal, or for translating individual phrases.
• Literature search: Using AI tools to identify relevant articles or to organize search results on a specific topic.
• Initial manuscript scanning: Using AI to identify potential problems (e.g., plagiarism, format inconsistencies, obvious gaps in references), but not for a definitive assessment of scientific content or ethical issues.
• Keywords and Annotations: Assist in optimizing keywords or creating draft annotations, which are then edited and approved by the editor.
• Summary: A summary of long texts to better understand their content, but not to assess their scientific value.

3. Prohibiting the use of AI by editors

It is strictly forbidden to use AI for the following purposes:

• Editorial decision-making:AI cannot make decisions about rejecting, accepting, or sending manuscripts for revision. These decisions should always be left to the human editor.

• Scientific Content Generation: The use of AI to write, paraphrase, or substantially alter scholarly sections of manuscripts, letters to reviewers, commentaries, or any other material that is supposed to be a person's original work.
• Breach of confidentiality: Uploading manuscripts (including unpublished data, results, conclusions) or any other sensitive information to publicly available AI tools without prior confidence in their security and confidentiality.
• Review Score: Using AI to assess the quality or content of reviews written by experts.
• Creating false data or falsification: The use of AI to generate or modify data, images, or any other content that can be used to falsify scientific results.
• Reviewer Identification: Using AI to automatically select or exclude potential reviewers without human oversight and assessing conflicts of interest.

4. Data privacy and security

• Editors should pay maximum attention to the confidentiality of unpublished manuscripts and related materials.

• Before using any AI tool, make sure it meets the publisher's data protection and privacy standards.
• Don't use AI tools that can save or use the data you've uploaded for your own learning, unless explicitly allowed and guaranteed privacy.
• Manuscripts and personal data of authors and reviewers should never be transferred to third-party AI services unless approved by the publisher.

5. Disclosure of the use of AI

• In the case of using AI to perform tasks that may affect the content or review process of the manuscript, the editor should be ready to disclose this at the request of the publisher or in case of questions.

6. Training and support

• The publisher will provide information and training on the responsible use of AI tools, and will update this policy as technology and ethical guidelines evolve.

7. Consequences of non-compliance

• Violation of this Policy may result in disciplinary action, including, but not limited to, revocation of editorial authority and termination of cooperation with the publisher. In the case of serious violations affecting scientific integrity or confidentiality, additional action may be taken.

Updates to the AI Policy by Media Sphere Publisher

• This Policy will be regularly reviewed and updated to align with rapidly evolving AI technologies and best practices in scientific publishing.