vspВопросы современной педиатрииCurrent Pediatrics1682-55271682-5535Издательство «ПедиатрЪ»10.15690/vsp.v20i1.2244vsp-2569Research ArticleРЕДАКЦИОННАЯ СТАТЬЯEDITORIALРедакционная деятельность как она есть: комментарии научного редактораEditorial Activity as It is: Scientific Editor Commentarieshttps://orcid.org/0000-0002-8915-6153СайгитовР. Т.SaygitovRuslan T.

Сайгитов Руслан Темирсултанович - доктор медицинских наук, научный редактор журнала «Вопросы современной педиатрии», заместитель главного редактора журнала «Педиатрическая фармакология»117335, Москва, ул. Вавилова, д. 81, корп. 1, оф. 2-8.тел.: +7 (499) 132-02-07

Moscow.

saygitov@yandex.ruООО «Издательство „ПедиатрЪ”»РоссияLLC «Publishing House “Pediatr”»Russian Federation2021020320212011018Copyright © Сайгитов Р.Т., 20212021Сайгитов Р.Т.Saygitov R.T.Данная работа распространяется под лицензией Creative Commons Attribution 4.0.This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.https://vsp.spr-journal.ru/jour/article/view/2569

.

редакционная деятельностьEditorial ActivityАвтор статьи благодарит А.С. Островскую, ответственного секретаря журнала «Вопросы современной педиатрии», за помощь в сборе данных о результатах редакционной деятельности, представленных выше.The author expresses gratitude to Anastasia S. Ostrovskaya, executive secretary of “Current Pediatrics”, for all the help in data collection about editorial activities results presented previously.ReferencesSmith NL. An Analysis of Ethical Challenges in Evaluation. Am J Eval. 2002;23(2):199-206. doi: 10.1177/109821400202300208Smith NL. An Analysis of Ethical Challenges in Evaluation. Am J Eval. 2002;23(2):199-206. doi: 10.1177/109821400202300208Костик М.М. К вопросу о редактировании статей, или Как наладить коммуникацию автора и редактора: взгляд автора. Вопросы современной педиатрии. 2021;20(1):87-90. doi: 10.15690/vsp.v20i1.2245Kostik MM. Questions of Editing Articles or How to Improve Communication between Author and Editor: the Author's View. Voprosy sovremennoi pediatrii — Current Pediatrics. 2021;20(1):87-90. (In Russ). doi: 10.15690/vsp.v20i1.2245Сайгитов Р.Т. Правила и рекомендации по представлению рукописей, содержащих результаты оригинальных исследовании // Вопросы современной педиатрии. — 2015. — Т. 14. — № 3. — С. 425-432. doi: 10.15690/vsp.v14i3.1382Saygitov RT. General Guidelines for Submission of Original Research Papers. Voprosy sovremennoi pediatrii — Current Pediatrics. 2015;14(3):425-432. (In Russ). doi: 10.15690/vsp.v14i3.1382Moher D, Hopewell S, Schulz KF, et al. CONSORT 2010 explanation and elaboration: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials. BMJ. 2010;340:c869. doi: 10.1136/bmj.c869Moher D, Hopewell S, Schulz KF, et al. CONSORT 2010 explanation and elaboration: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials. BMJ. 2010;340:c869. doi: 10.1136/bmj.c869Сайгитов Р.Т., Островская А.С. Рекомендации ICMJE-2016: обновленный стандарт научных публикаций в медицинских журналах // Вопросы современной педиатрии. — 2017. — Т. 16. — № 2. — С. 88-89. doi: 10.15690/vsp.v16i2.1709Saygitov RT, Ostrovskaya AS. ICMJE-2016 Recommendations: Updated Standard of Scientific Publications in Medical Journals. Voprosy sovremennoi pediatrii — Current Pediatrics. 2017;16(2):88-89. (In Russ). doi: 10.15690/vsp.v16i2.1709Vandenbroucke JP, von Elm E, Altman DG, et al. Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE): Explanation and Elaboration. PLoS Med. 2007;4(10):e297. doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.0040297Vandenbroucke JP, von Elm E, Altman DG, et al. Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE): Explanation and Elaboration. PLoS Med. 2007;4(10):e297. doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.0040297Cohen JF, Korevaar DA, Altman DG, et al. STARD 2015 guidelines for reporting diagnostic accuracy studies: explanation and elaboration. BMJ Open. 2016;6(11):e012799. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2016-012799Cohen JF, Korevaar DA, Altman DG, et al. STARD 2015 guidelines for reporting diagnostic accuracy studies: explanation and elaboration. BMJ Open. 2016;6(11):e012799. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2016-012799Riley DS, Barber MS, Kienle GS, et al. CARE guidelines for case reports: explanation and elaboration document. J Clin Epidemiol. 2017;89:218-235. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2017.04.026Riley DS, Barber MS, Kienle GS, et al. CARE guidelines for case reports: explanation and elaboration document. J Clin Epidemiol. 2017;89:218-235. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2017.04.026Agha RA, Fowler AJ, Saeta A, et al. The SCARE Statement: Consensus-based surgical case report guidelines. Int J Surg. 2016; 34:180-186. doi: 10.1016/j.ijsu.2016.08.014Agha RA, Fowler AJ, Saeta A, et al. The SCARE Statement: Consensus-based surgical case report guidelines. Int J Surg. 2016; 34:180-186. doi: 10.1016/j.ijsu.2016.08.014World Medical Association. World Medical Association Declaration of Helsinki: Ethical Principles for Medical Research Involving Human Subjects. JAMA. 2013;310(20):2191-2194. doi: 10.1001/jama.2013.281053World Medical Association. World Medical Association Declaration of Helsinki: Ethical Principles for Medical Research Involving Human Subjects. JAMA. 2013;310(20):2191-2194. doi: 10.1001/jama.2013.281053COPE. Guidelines on good publication practice. The COPE Report 1999. Available online: https://publicationethics.org/files/u7141/1999pdf13.pdf. Accessed on February 21, 2021.COPE. Guidelines on good publication practice. The COPE Report 1999. Available online: https://publicationethics.org/files/u7141/1999pdf13.pdf. Accessed on February 21, 2021.Battisti WP, Wager E, Baltzer L, et al. Good Publication Practice for Communicating Company-Sponsored Medical Research: GPP3. Ann Intern Med. 2015;163(6):461-464. doi: 10.7326/M15-0288Battisti WP, Wager E, Baltzer L, et al. Good Publication Practice for Communicating Company-Sponsored Medical Research: GPP3. Ann Intern Med. 2015;163(6):461-464. doi: 10.7326/M15-0288ICH harmonised guideline. Integrated addendum to ICH E6(R1): Guideline for Good Clinical Practice. E6(R2). Available online: https://database.ich.org/sites/default/files/E6_R2_Addendum.pdf. Accessed on February 21, 2021.ICH harmonised guideline. Integrated addendum to ICH E6(R1): Guideline for Good Clinical Practice. E6(R2). Available online: https://database.ich.org/sites/default/files/E6_R2_Addendum.pdf. Accessed on February 21, 2021.Recommendations for the Conduct, Reporting, Editing, and Publication of Scholarly Work in Medical Journals (updated December 2019). Available online: http://www.icmje.org/icmje-recommendations.pdf. Accessed on February 21, 2021.Recommendations for the Conduct, Reporting, Editing, and Publication of Scholarly Work in Medical Journals (updated December 2019). Available online: http://www.icmje.org/icmje-recommendations.pdf. Accessed on February 21, 2021.Organisations supporting EQUATOR. Available online: https:// www.equator-network.org/about-us/organisations-supporting-equator. Accessed on February 21, 2021.Organisations supporting EQUATOR. Available online: https:// www.equator-network.org/about-us/organisations-supporting-equator. Accessed on February 21, 2021.Cobo E, Cortes J, Ribera JM, et al. Effect of using reporting guidelines during peer review on quality of final manuscripts submitted to a biomedical journal: masked randomised trial. BMJ. 2011; 343:d6783. doi: 10.1136/bmj.d6783Cobo E, Cortes J, Ribera JM, et al. Effect of using reporting guidelines during peer review on quality of final manuscripts submitted to a biomedical journal: masked randomised trial. BMJ. 2011; 343:d6783. doi: 10.1136/bmj.d6783Wynne KE, Simpson BJ, Berman L, et al. Results of a longitudinal study of rigorous manuscript submission guidelines designed to improve the quality of clinical research reporting in a peer-reviewed surgical journal. J Pediatr Surg. 2011;46(1):131-137. doi: 10.1016/j.jpedsurg.2010.09.077Wynne KE, Simpson BJ, Berman L, et al. Results of a longitudinal study of rigorous manuscript submission guidelines designed to improve the quality of clinical research reporting in a peer-reviewed surgical journal. J Pediatr Surg. 2011;46(1):131-137. doi: 10.1016/j.jpedsurg.2010.09.077Pandis N, Shamseer L, Kokich VG, et al. Active implementation strategy of CONSORT adherence by a dental specialty journal improved randomized clinical trial reporting. J Clin Epidemiol. 2014; 67(9):1044-1048. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2014.04.001Pandis N, Shamseer L, Kokich VG, et al. Active implementation strategy of CONSORT adherence by a dental specialty journal improved randomized clinical trial reporting. J Clin Epidemiol. 2014; 67(9):1044-1048. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2014.04.001Exclusive interview with developers of STROBE guidelines for reporting of epidemiologic studies. Epi Monitor. 2007;28(11):2-5. Available online: https://www.strobe-statement.org/fileadmin/Strobe/uploads/commentaries/STROBE_EpiMonitor_Nov07.pdf. Accessed on February 21, 2021.Exclusive interview with developers of STROBE guidelines for reporting of epidemiologic studies. Epi Monitor. 2007;28(11):2-5. Available online: https://www.strobe-statement.org/fileadmin/Strobe/uploads/commentaries/STROBE_EpiMonitor_Nov07.pdf. Accessed on February 21, 2021.Vilaro M, Cortes J, Selva-O'Callaghan A, et al. Adherence to reporting guidelines increases the number of citations: the argument for including a methodologist in the editorial process and peerreview. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2019;19(1):112. doi: 10.1186/s12874-019-0746-4Vilaro M, Cortes J, Selva-O'Callaghan A, et al. Adherence to reporting guidelines increases the number of citations: the argument for including a methodologist in the editorial process and peerreview. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2019;19(1):112. doi: 10.1186/s12874-019-0746-4Shanahan DR, Lopes de Sousa I, Marshall DM. Simple decisiontree tool to facilitate author identification of reporting guidelines during submission: a before-after study. Res Integr Peer Rev. 2017; 2:20. doi: 10.1186/s41073-017-0044-9Shanahan DR, Lopes de Sousa I, Marshall DM. Simple decisiontree tool to facilitate author identification of reporting guidelines during submission: a before-after study. Res Integr Peer Rev. 2017; 2:20. doi: 10.1186/s41073-017-0044-9Blanco D, Hren D, Kirkham JJ, et al. A survey exploring biomedical editors' perceptions of editorial interventions to improve adherence to reporting guidelines. F1000Research. 2019;8:1682. doi: 10.12688/f1000research.20556.1Blanco D, Hren D, Kirkham JJ, et al. A survey exploring biomedical editors' perceptions of editorial interventions to improve adherence to reporting guidelines. F1000Research. 2019;8:1682. doi: 10.12688/f1000research.20556.1Olson CM, Rennie D, Cook D, et al. Publication Bias in Editorial Decision Making. JAMA. 2002;287(21):2825-2828. doi: 10.1001/jama.287.21.2825Olson CM, Rennie D, Cook D, et al. Publication Bias in Editorial Decision Making. JAMA. 2002;287(21):2825-2828. doi: 10.1001/jama.287.21.2825Giordan M, Csikasz-Nagy A, Collings AM, Vaggi F. The effects of an editor serving as one of the reviewers during the peer-review process. F1000Research. 2016;5:683. doi: 10.12688/f1000re-search.8452.2Giordan M, Csikasz-Nagy A, Collings AM, Vaggi F. The effects of an editor serving as one of the reviewers during the peer-review process. F1000Research. 2016;5:683. doi: 10.12688/f1000re-search.8452.2How editors edit. Nat Methods. 2019;16:135. doi: 10.1038/s41592-019-0324-zHow editors edit. Nat Methods. 2019;16:135. doi: 10.1038/s41592-019-0324-zJohnston SC, Lowenstein DH, Ferriero DM, et al. Early editorial manuscript screening versus obligate peer review: a randomized trial. Ann Neurol. 2007;61(4):A10-A12. doi: 10.1002/ana.21150Johnston SC, Lowenstein DH, Ferriero DM, et al. Early editorial manuscript screening versus obligate peer review: a randomized trial. Ann Neurol. 2007;61(4):A10-A12. doi: 10.1002/ana.21150Esarey J. Does Peer Review Identify the Best Papers? A Simulation Study of Editors, Reviewers, and the Scientific Publication Process. PS Polit Sci Polit. 2017;50(4):963-969. doi: 10.1017/S1049096517001081Esarey J. Does Peer Review Identify the Best Papers? A Simulation Study of Editors, Reviewers, and the Scientific Publication Process. PS Polit Sci Polit. 2017;50(4):963-969. doi: 10.1017/S1049096517001081Kleinert S, Wager E. Responsible research publication: international standards for editors. A position statement developed at the 2nd World Conference on Research Integrity, Singapore, July 22-24, 2010. Chapter 51. In: Mayer T, Steneck N, eds. Promoting Research Integrity in a Global Environment. Singapore: Imperial College Press / World Scientific Publishing; 2011. pp. 317-328.Kleinert S, Wager E. Responsible research publication: international standards for editors. A position statement developed at the 2nd World Conference on Research Integrity, Singapore, July 22-24, 2010. Chapter 51. In: Mayer T, Steneck N, eds. Promoting Research Integrity in a Global Environment. Singapore: Imperial College Press / World Scientific Publishing; 2011. pp. 317-328.Schroter S, Black N, Evans S, et al. What errors do peer reviewers detect, and does training improve their ability to detect them? J R Soc Med. 2008;101(10):507-514. doi: 10.1258/jrsm.2008.080062Schroter S, Black N, Evans S, et al. What errors do peer reviewers detect, and does training improve their ability to detect them? J R Soc Med. 2008;101(10):507-514. doi: 10.1258/jrsm.2008.080062Mayo NE, Goldberg MS. When is a case-control study not a casecontrol study? J Rehabil Med. 2009;41(4):209-216. doi: 10.2340/16501977-0343Mayo NE, Goldberg MS. When is a case-control study not a casecontrol study? J Rehabil Med. 2009;41(4):209-216. doi: 10.2340/16501977-0343Esene IN, Ngu J, El Zoghby M, et al. Case series and descriptive cohort studies in neurosurgery: the confusion and solution. Childs Nerv Syst. 2014;30:1321-1332. doi: 10.1007/s00381-014-2460-1Esene IN, Ngu J, El Zoghby M, et al. Case series and descriptive cohort studies in neurosurgery: the confusion and solution. Childs Nerv Syst. 2014;30:1321-1332. doi: 10.1007/s00381-014-2460-1Медицинские (научные) редакторы. Доступно по: https://www.facebook.com/groups/996525337155780/permalink/1888423534632618. Ссылка активна на 21.02.2021.Медицинские (научные) редакторы. Доступно по: https://www.facebook.com/groups/996525337155780/permalink/1888423534632618. Ссылка активна на 21.02.2021.Nature Research Editing Service. Scientific Editing. Available online: https://authorservices.springernature.com/scientific-editing. Accessed on February 21, 2021.Nature Research Editing Service. Scientific Editing. Available online: https://authorservices.springernature.com/scientific-editing. Accessed on February 21, 2021.Сайгитов Р. Эффективность редакционной деятельности при подготовке рукописей, содержащих результаты оригинальных работ: итоги рандомизированного контролируемого исследования // Вопросы современной педиатрии. — 2010. — Т. 9. — № 6. — С. 5-15.Saygitov RT. Effectiveness of editing in preparation of original articles: results of randomized controlled study. Voprosy sovremennoi pediatrii — CurrentPediatrics. 2010;9(6): 5-15 (In Russ).G0tzsche PC, Delamothe T, Godlee F, Lundh A. Adequacy of authors' replies to criticism raised in electronic letters to the editor: cohort study. BMJ. 2010;341:c3926. doi: 10.1136/bmj.c3926G0tzsche PC, Delamothe T, Godlee F, Lundh A. Adequacy of authors' replies to criticism raised in electronic letters to the editor: cohort study. BMJ. 2010;341:c3926. doi: 10.1136/bmj.c3926Gerwing TG, Allen Gerwing AM, Avery-Gomm S, et al. Quantifying professionalism in peer review. Res Integr Peer Rev. 2020;5:9. doi: 10.1186/s41073-020-00096-xGerwing TG, Allen Gerwing AM, Avery-Gomm S, et al. Quantifying professionalism in peer review. Res Integr Peer Rev. 2020;5:9. doi: 10.1186/s41073-020-00096-xSilbiger NJ, Stubler AD. Unprofessional peer reviews disproportionately harm underrepresented groups in STEM. Peer J. 2019; 7:e8247. doi:.org/10.7717/peerj.8247Silbiger NJ, Stubler AD. Unprofessional peer reviews disproportionately harm underrepresented groups in STEM. Peer J. 2019; 7:e8247. doi:.org/10.7717/peerj.8247Hamilton DG, Fraser H, Hoekstra R, Fidler F. Journal policies and editors' opinions on peer review. Elife. 2020 Nov 19;9:e62529. doi: 10.7554/eLife.62529Hamilton DG, Fraser H, Hoekstra R, Fidler F. Journal policies and editors' opinions on peer review. Elife. 2020 Nov 19;9:e62529. doi: 10.7554/eLife.62529Elsevier investigates hundreds of peer reviewers for manipulating citations. Nature. 2019;573:174. doi: 10.1038/d41586-019-02639-9Elsevier investigates hundreds of peer reviewers for manipulating citations. Nature. 2019;573:174. doi: 10.1038/d41586-019-02639-9El-Rayess H, Khamis AM, Haddad S, et al. Assessing concordance of financial conflicts of interest disclosures with payments' databases: a systematic survey of the health literature. J Clin Epidemiol. 2020;127:19-28. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2020.06.040El-Rayess H, Khamis AM, Haddad S, et al. Assessing concordance of financial conflicts of interest disclosures with payments' databases: a systematic survey of the health literature. J Clin Epidemiol. 2020;127:19-28. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2020.06.040ICMJE Disclosure Form (Updated February 2021). Available online: http://www.icmje.org/disclosure-of-interest. Accessed on February 21, 2021.ICMJE Disclosure Form (Updated February 2021). Available online: http://www.icmje.org/disclosure-of-interest. Accessed on February 21, 2021.Островская А.С. Раскрытие конфликта интересов автора: зачем? // Вопросы современной педиатрии. — 2016. — Т. 15. — № 6. — С. 542-546. doi: 10.15690/vsp.v15i6.1646Ostrovskaya AS. Disclosure of the Author's Conflict of Interest: Why? Voprosy sovremennoi pedi-atrii — CurrentPediatrics. 2016;15(6):542-546. (In Russ). doi: 10.15690/vsp.v15i6.1646COPE. Cases: How to respond to a reader's repeated concerns. Available online: https://publicationethics.org/case/how-respond-readers-repeated-concerns. Accessed on February 21, 2021.COPE. Cases: How to respond to a reader's repeated concerns. Available online: https://publicationethics.org/case/how-respond-readers-repeated-concerns. Accessed on February 21, 2021.Choi YJ, Chung MS, Koo HJ, et al. Does the Reporting Quality of Diagnostic Test Accuracy Studies, as Defined by STARD 2015, Affect Citation? Korean J Radiol. 2016;17(5):706-714. doi: 10.3348/kjr.2016.17.5.706Choi YJ, Chung MS, Koo HJ, et al. Does the Reporting Quality of Diagnostic Test Accuracy Studies, as Defined by STARD 2015, Affect Citation? Korean J Radiol. 2016;17(5):706-714. doi: 10.3348/kjr.2016.17.5.706Hajibandeh S, Hajibandeh S, Antoniou GA, et al. Association between bibliometric parameters, reporting and methodological quality of randomised controlled trials in vascular and endovascular surgery. Vascular. 2017;25(2):196-207. doi: 10.1177/1708538116653289Hajibandeh S, Hajibandeh S, Antoniou GA, et al. Association between bibliometric parameters, reporting and methodological quality of randomised controlled trials in vascular and endovascular surgery. Vascular. 2017;25(2):196-207. doi: 10.1177/1708538116653289Mackinnon S, Drozdowska BA, Hamilton M, et al. Are methodological quality and completeness of reporting associated with citation-based measures of publication impact? A secondary analysis of a systematic review of dementia biomarker studies. BMJ Open. 2018;8:e020331. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2017-020331Mackinnon S, Drozdowska BA, Hamilton M, et al. Are methodological quality and completeness of reporting associated with citation-based measures of publication impact? A secondary analysis of a systematic review of dementia biomarker studies. BMJ Open. 2018;8:e020331. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2017-020331Felix Schonbrodt’s blog. Available online: https://www.nicebread.de/2017/05. Accessed on February 21, 2021.Felix Schonbrodt’s blog. Available online: https://www.nicebread.de/2017/05. Accessed on February 21, 2021.Bell ML, Fiero M, Horton NJ, et al. Handling missing data in RCTs; a review of the top medical journals. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2014;14:118. doi: 10.1186/1471-2288-14-118Bell ML, Fiero M, Horton NJ, et al. Handling missing data in RCTs; a review of the top medical journals. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2014;14:118. doi: 10.1186/1471-2288-14-118Barnett AG. Missing the point: are journals using the ideal number of decimal places? F1000Research. 2018;7:450. doi: 10.12688/f1000research.14488.3Barnett AG. Missing the point: are journals using the ideal number of decimal places? F1000Research. 2018;7:450. doi: 10.12688/f1000research.14488.3Korevaar DA, Cohen JF, Hooft L, Bossuyt PM. Literature survey of high-impact journals revealed reporting weaknesses in abstracts of diagnostic accuracy studies. J Clin Epidemiol. 2015;68(6):708-715. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2015.01.014Korevaar DA, Cohen JF, Hooft L, Bossuyt PM. Literature survey of high-impact journals revealed reporting weaknesses in abstracts of diagnostic accuracy studies. J Clin Epidemiol. 2015;68(6):708-715. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2015.01.014San Francisco Declaration on Research Assessment. Available online: https://sfdora.org/read. Accessed on February 21, 2021.San Francisco Declaration on Research Assessment. Available online: https://sfdora.org/read. Accessed on February 21, 2021.Altman DG, Moher D. Declaration of transparency for each research article. BMJ. 2013;347:f4796. doi: 10.1136/bmj.f4796Altman DG, Moher D. Declaration of transparency for each research article. BMJ. 2013;347:f4796. doi: 10.1136/bmj.f4796

The authors declare that there are no conflicts of interest present.