- » Aim and Scope
- » Section Policies
- » Publication Frequency
- » Open Access Policy
- » Peer-Review
- » Indexation
- » Publishing Ethics
- » Founder
- » Author fees
- » Disclosure and Conflict of Interest
- » Keywords
- » Plagiarism detection
Aim and Scope
The main objective of the journal "Malignant Tumors" is to publish original articles on clinical, clinical-experimental and fundamental scientific research, reviews, lectures, descriptions of clinical cases, as well as auxiliary materials on the treatment of malignant neoplasms.
The aim of the publication are to inform doctors of various specialties about achievements in the field of oncology, including diagnostics, treatment and prevention of malignant neoplasms, to promote the improvement of the effectiveness of treatment of patients with malignant neoplasms.
The interaction of specialists allows us to develop a unified strategy for scientific clinical research, diagnostics, and treatment of diseases.
Section Policies
 Open Submissions |
 Indexed |
Peer Reviewed |
| Open Submissions |
Indexed |
Peer Reviewed |
| Open Submissions |
Indexed |
Peer Reviewed |
| Open Submissions |
Indexed |
Peer Reviewed |
| Open Submissions |
Indexed |
Peer Reviewed |
Publication Frequency
Published 4 times a year
Open Access Policy
"Malignant tumours" 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.
Peer-Review
A double-blind peer review method is mandatory for processing of all scientific manuscripts submitted to the editorial stuff of "Malignant Tumors". This implies that neither the reviewer is aware of the authorship of the manuscript, nor the author maintains any contact with the reviewer.
- Articles are reviewed by members of the editorial board and editorial staff, as well as invited reviewers – leading specialists in the relevant field of medicine (having an academic degree of at least a doctor of science and not having scientific, financial or any other relationship with the authors of the article and the editorial board of the journal).
- The decision on choosing a particular reviewer to conduct the article examination is made by the editor-in-chief. The review period is 4-8 weeks, but at the request of the reviewer it can be extended.
- The review procedure is confidential. Reviewers are notified that the manuscripts sent to them are the intellectual property of the authors and are classified information. Reviewers are not allowed to make copies of the manuscript for their own needs. The author of the work being reviewed is provided with the text of the review.
- Each reviewer has the right to refuse to review in the event of an obvious conflict of interest that affects the perception and interpretation of the manuscript materials.
- Following the review of the manuscript, the reviewer makes recommendations on the future fate of the article (each reviewer’s decision is justified): - the article is recommended for publication in its current form;
- the article is recommended for publication after correction of the deficiencies noted by the reviewer;
- the article requires additional review by another specialist;
- the article cannot be published in the journal. - If the review contains recommendations for correcting and refining the article, the editorial board of the journal sends the author the text of the review with a proposal to take them into account when preparing a new version of the article or to refute them in a reasoned manner (partially or completely). Refining the article should not take more than two months from the moment the electronic message about the need to make changes is sent to the authors. The article revised by the author is re-submitted for review.
- In case of refusal of the authors to revise the materials, they must notify the editors in writing or orally 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 about the refusal 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 the register due to the expiration of the period allotted for revision.
- If the author and reviewers have irresolvable disagreements 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 decision to refuse publication of 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-examination. A notice of refusal to publish and a copy of the review are sent to the author by e-mail.
- After the editorial board of the journal has made a decision to accept the article for publication, the editors inform the author of this and indicate the publication dates.
- 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 following are not accepted for publication: - articles that are not formatted in accordance with the publication requirements and whose authors refuse to technically revise the article.
- articles whose authors do not implement the reviewer’s constructive comments or do not reasonably refute them. - The editors send copies of reviews to the Ministry of Education and Science of the Russian Federation upon receipt of a corresponding request.
- Original reviews of submitted manuscripts remain deposited for 5 years.
Indexation
Articles in "Malignant tumors" (“Zlokachestvennye opuholi”) 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.
- Base
- Cyberleninka
- Dimensions
- LAN
- RNMJ.RU
- VINITI RAS
Publishing Ethics
The Publication Ethics and Publication Malpractice Statement of the journal “Malignant tumors” 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: "Malignant tumors"
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 "Malignant tumors" 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 "Malignant tumors" 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 "Malignant tumors" 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 "Malignant tumors" 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 "Malignant tumors" 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 "Malignant tumors" 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 "Malignant tumors" 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
Russian Society of Clinical Oncology
Trubnaya str. 25, korp.1
Tel: +7 495 6860237
Author fees
Publication 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.
Keywords
FUNDAMENTAL ONCOLOGY AND EXPERIMENTAL MEDICINE
Single nucleotide polymorphisms: the role of breast cancer development and clinical perspective.
Bateneva E.I., Lubchenko L.N., Mescheryakov A.A., Ragimov A.A., Kadochnikova V.V., Trofimov D.Yu.
Thyroid status as a prognostic factor in oncology.
Glushakov R.I., Vlasyeva O.V. Sobolev I.V., Proshin S.N., Tapilskaya N.I.
DIAGOSTICS AND TREATMENT OF TUMORS. ORIGINAL ARTICLES.
Immunotherapy for malignant gliomas: current status and perspective.
Borisov K.E., Sakayeva D.D.
Features of multimodal treatment of locally-advanced cervix cancer regarding to the tumor histology.
Sayevets V.V., Vazhenin A.V., Zharov A.V., Chernova L.F., Shimotkina I.G., Gubaydullina T.N., Kravchenko G.R.
Bilobar stenting for tumors of the intrahepatic bile ducts.
Korolev M.P., Fedotov L,E., Avanesyan R.G., , Lepekhin G.M., Amirkhanyan T,V,
Hemostasis disorders in colorectal surgery.
Hachaturova E.A., Savushkin A.V., Gubko A.V., Musin I.I., Eroshkina T.D., Kameneva A.V.
OWN INVESTIGATIONS.
Surgery volume selection in cervix cancer patients.
Chernyshova A.L., Kolomiets L.A., Sinilkin I.G., Chernov V.I., Lyapunov A.Yu.
Diagmostics algorithms of nevi and skin tumors with “Dermatoscope” device.
Tleugabilova G.A.
Strategy and tactics of treatment in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer.
Moiseenko A.B., Gulyaev A.V., Karachun A.M., Belyaeva A.V., Kornilov A.V.
Plagiarism detection
"Zlokachestvennye pouholi" («Malignant Tumors») use native russian-language plagiarism detection software Antiplagiat to screen the submissions. If plagiarism is identified, the COPE guidelines on plagiarism will be followed.
