Aim and Scope

The journal is intended for a wide range of specialists in ultrasound and functional diagnostic, as well as in other medical and biomedical specialties, who use ultrasound routinely.

Ultrasound is an advanced diagnostic modality, with wide availability, an optimal cost-result ratio and high rate of sensitivity and specificity, which provides widespread use of ultrasound in medical science and practice. Ultrasound shows an unprecedented rates of development. New techniques focused on improvement of diagnostic accuracy of ultrasound in various pathologies, including oncology, and on reducing of the number of invasive diagnostic procedures, including biopsies appears almost annually. Ongoing scientific research proving the informativeness of these techniques is necessary for implementation in clinical practice. There is a wide demand for ultrasound technologies in obstetrics and gynecology, cardiology, general and special surgery, oncology and other fields of clinical medicine.”

A rigorous, double-blind peer review by recognized experts is combined with detailed descriptions of errors, inaccuracies and inconsistencies and indications of rational ways to correct them. Particular attention is paid to the assessing of statistical data processing methods, the correctness of which is extremely important to obtain reliable results, satisfied the requirements of evidence-based medicine.

The journal presents original articles, clinical cases, reviews (including pictorial ones), clinical lectures, diagnostic guidelines, expert opinions, protocols and standards of ultrasound examinations, information about congresses, conferences, seminars, regulatory documents of the specialty, etc.

Section Policies

General Ultrasound

Open Submissions

Indexed

Peer Reviewed

Obstetrics and Gynecology Ultrasound

Open Submissions

Indexed

Peer Reviewed

Cardiovascular Ultrasound

Open Submissions

Indexed

Peer Reviewed

Other trends in ultrasound diagnostics

Open Submissions

Indexed

Peer Reviewed

Pediatric Ultrasound

Open Submissions

Indexed

Peer Reviewed

Expert Opinion

Open Submissions

Indexed

Peer Reviewed

Case Reports

Open Submissions

Indexed

Peer Reviewed

Reviews

Open Submissions

Indexed

Peer Reviewed

Guidelines, standards, protocols

Open Submissions

Indexed

Peer Reviewed

Letter to the editor-in-chief

Open Submissions

Indexed

Peer Reviewed

Events

Open Submissions

Indexed

Peer Reviewed

Supplement

Open Submissions

Indexed

Peer Reviewed

In Memoriam

Open Submissions

Indexed

Peer Reviewed

Anniversaries

Open Submissions

Indexed

Peer Reviewed

Corrections

Open Submissions

Indexed

Peer Reviewed

FUNCTIONAL DIAGNOSTICS

Open Submissions

Indexed

Peer Reviewed

GUIDELINES

Open Submissions

Indexed

Peer Reviewed

Publication Frequency

4 times per year

Open Access Policy

This 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

1) All the articles submitted for the publication in the journal "Ultrasound & Functional Diagnostics", are reviewed for assessment. All reviewers are acknowledged experts in peer-reviewed materials and have publications on peer-reviewed article for the past 3 years. Reviews are stored in the publishing house and editorial office for 5 years.

2) The review is carried out in a double "blind" format: the article is sent for review to two independent reviewers without title information (name and contact information of authors), authors obtain a review without specifying the name of the reviewer. 

3) To carry out the review of scientific articles the members of the Editorial Board of the journal "Medical Visualization "may be involved. Experts working in the organization from which the scientific article came are not involved in reviewing.

4) If there are negative reviews of the manuscript from two different reviewers, the article is rejected.

5) If the review of the scientific work has an indication for some correction, it is sent to the authors for revision. In case of significant article correction, the article is reviewed again by the experts who made the first review.

6) If there is a doubt in the adequacy/accuracy of statistical analysis, the reviewer has the right to request to check the preliminary data under the conditions of confidentiality. If necessary, the reviewer has the right to request any related documents, such as minutes of the ethics committee meeting.

7) The following information should be included in a review:

1. compliance of the article with the journal profile
2. compliance of this article with the ethical standards;
3. the originality of scientific research;
4. the relevance and scientific novelty of the work;
5. the correctness of the groups formation (the adequacy of the material);
6. the adequacy of the study methods;
7. the adequacy of statistical analysis;
8. assessment of illustrative and tabular material;
9. compliance of the results with the goal and objectives;
10. whether the conclusions of the research reflect its goals and objectives, and whether the conclusions follow from the results, whether the conclusions are justified;
11. scientific and practical importance of scientific research;
12. the adequacy and relevance of citing sources;
13. At the end of the review there should be a recommendation to publish the work without corrections (1), or the need for corrections and possible re-reviewing (2), or inexpedient publication in this journal (3).

8) In case of the author’s disagreement with the reviewer’s comments they have an opportunity to justify their position. In case of dispute, the article is sent to re-double "blind" review. If the author disagrees with the comments of the reviewer, they have an opportunity to justify their position. In controversial cases, the work is sent to re-double "blind" review.

9) After reviewing the article, the chief editor makes a decision on the publication of an article in the journal. If necessary, the chief editor makes a decision on the publication together with the members of the Editorial Board and the Editorial Council. In case of disputes, the editors act in accordance with the rules of the International Committee of Publication Ethics (COPE) (http://publicationethics.org).

10) Copies of the article reviews or a reasoned refusal are sent directly to authors by the editorial staff. The editorial staff also takes the responsibility to send copies of reviews to the Ministry of Education and Science of the Russian Federation, if such a request is received.

Publishing Ethics

The section was prepared on the basis of publishing materials of scientific and medical literature Elsevier, as well as the materials of the International Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).

1. Introduction

1.1. Publication of materials in peer-reviewed journals is not only a simple way of scientific communication, but also makes a significant contribution to the development of the relevant field of science. Thus, it is important to establish standards for the future ethical behavior of all involved parties/stakeholders in the publication: authors, editors of the journal, reviewers, publishers and scientific societies for the journal "Ultrasound & Functional Diagnostics".

1.2. The publisher not only supports scientific communication and invests into the process, but is also responsible for complying with all current guidelines in the present paper.

1.3. The publisher takes responsibility for the strictest supervision of scientific materials. Our journal’s programs provide impartial "report" on the development of scientific thought and researches, so we are also aware of the responsibility for the proper representation of these "reports", especially in terms of the ethical aspects of the publications contained in this document.

2. Responsibilities of Editors

2.1. The decision to publish

The editor of the scientific journal "Ultrasound & Functional Diagnostics" is personally and independently responsible for deciding on the publication, often in collaboration with the relevant scientific community. The reliability of the publication and its scientific significance should always be the basis for the decision to publish. The editor may be guided by the policy of the Editorial Board of the journal "Ultrasound & Functional Diagnostics", being limited by current legal requirements in respect of defamation, copyright law and plagiarism.

The editor may confer with other editors and reviewers (or officials of the Scientific Society) while making a decision on publication.

2.2. Decency

The editor should evaluate intellectual content of manuscripts without regarding to race, gender, sexual orientation, religion, origin, nationality or political preferences of the author.

2.3. Confidentiality

The editor and the editorial board of the journal "Ultrasound & Functional Diagnostics" are required not to disclose information about manuscripts to all persons, except authors, reviewers, potential reviewers, other scientific advisors and publisher without any specific need.

2.4. Policy of disclosure and conflicts of interest

2.4.1 Unpublished data from submitted for consideration manuscripts cannot be used for personal research without the a written consent of the author. Information or ideas obtained during a peer-review and connected with potential benefits must be kept confidential and not be used for a personal benefit.

2.4.2 Editors must recuse from considering manuscripts (namely, to request a co-editor, associate editor or to cooperate with other members of the Editorial Board in reviewing the work, instead of personal reviewing and making a decision) in the case of conflicts of interests due to competitive, cooperative and other interactions and relations with authors, companies and possibly other institutions associated with the manuscript.

2.5. Supervision for publications

The editor providing some convincing evidence that the statements or conclusions presented in the publication are wrong should inform the publisher (and/or the relevant scientific community) for the urgent notice on changes, seizures of the publication, expressions of concern and other applications relevant to the situation.

2.6. The involvement and cooperation within the research

The editor in cooperation with the publisher (or Scientific Society) take appropriate counter measures in case of ethical complaints relating to reviewed manuscripts or published materials. Such measures include interaction with the authors of the manuscript and the reasoning of a complaint or claim, but may also involve cooperation with relevant organizations and research centers.

3. Responsibilities of Reviewers

3.1. The influence on the decision of the Editorial Board

Peer-review helps the editor to make a decision to publish and with the help of an appropriate interaction with the author may also help the author to improve the quality of the work. A review is an essential element in formal scientific communication that is in the "heart" of the scientific approach. Publisher shares the view that all scientists who wish to contribute to the publication must do substantial work while reviewing the manuscript.

3.2. Diligence

Any chosen reviewer who feels inadequate qualifications for consideration of the manuscript or who does not have enough time for a quick performance should notify the editor of "Ultrasound & Functional Diagnostics" and ask to remove one from the process of reviewing the manuscripts.

3.3. Confidentiality

Any manuscript received for review should be regarded as a confidential document. This work cannot be open and discussed with any persons who do not have the permission from the Editor.

3.4. Requirements to Manuscripts and objectivity

The reviewer is required to give an objective assessment. Personal criticism of the author is not acceptable. Reviewers should clearly and convincingly express their opinions.

3.5. Recognition of primary sources

Reviewers should identify relevant published works corresponding to the topic and not included in the bibliography of the manuscript. For any claim (observation, conclusion or argument), published earlier in the manuscript there must be a corresponding bibliographic reference. The reviewer should also pay the Editor’s attention to any substantial similarity or overlap between the manuscript under consideration and any other published work, being in the field of scientific competence of the reviewer.

3.6. Policy of disclosure and conflicts of interests

3.6.1 Unpublished data from submitted for consideration manuscripts cannot be used for personal research without a written consent of the author. Information or ideas obtained during a peer-review and connected with potential benefits must be kept confidential and are not to be used for personal benefit.

3.6.2. Reviewers should not participate in the examination of the manuscripts in case of conflicts of interests because of competitive, cooperative and other interactions and relationships with any of the authors, companies or other institutions associated with the submitted work.

4. Responsibilities of the Authors

4.1. Requirements for Manuscripts

4.1.1 The authors of the original study report should provide reliable results of the work as well as an objective discussion of the importance of the research. The data that are the basis for the work should be presented correctly. The work should contain enough details and bibliographic references for possible reuse. False or intentionally false statements are perceived as unethical behavior and are unacceptable.

4.1.2. Surveys and research papers should also be accurate and objective, the editorial board’s point of view should be clearly seen.

4.2. Access to data and storage

The author may be requested to provide the raw data related to the manuscript to be used in the review by the editors. Authors should be prepared to provide public access to such information (according ALPSP-STM Statement on Data and Databases), if it is possible, and in any case be prepared to store the data for an adequate period after publication.

4.3. Originality and plagiarism

4.3.1 Authors should be sure that the work presented is completely original and in the case of use of works or statements of other authors should provide relevant bibliographic references or extracts.

4.3.2 Plagiarism can exist in many forms, from submitting someone else's work as an author’s one to copying or paraphrasing substantial parts of another work (without attribution) and even to application of their rights on the results of other people's research. Plagiarism in all its forms is unethical and unacceptable.

4.4. Plurality, redundancy and simultaneous of the publication

4.4.1 In general, the author should not publish the manuscript mostly devoted to the same study as the original publication more than in one journal. Presentation of the same manuscript simultaneously in more than one journal is perceived as unethical behavior and is unacceptable.

4.4.2. In general, the author should not submit the previously published article to another journal.

4.4.3. Publication of a certain type of articles (clinical practice guidelines, translated articles) in more than one journal is ethical in some cases in some certain conditions. The authors and editors of both journals must agree to the secondary publication necessarily representing the same data and interpretations as in the initially published work.

The bibliography of primary works should be presented in the second publication. For more information about acceptable forms of secondary publications can be found at www.icmje.org.

4.5. Recognition of primary sources

It is important to recognize the contributions of others. Authors should refer to publications that are relevant to the execution of the presented work. Data obtained privately, for example, during a conversation, correspondence, or in the process of discussion with third parties cannot be used or represented without the express of the written consent of the original source. The information obtained from confidential sources, such as the evaluation of manuscripts and grants, should not be used without the express of the written permission of the author of the work relating to the confidential sources.

4.6. Authorship of publications

4.6.1 Only persons who made a significant contribution to the formation, development, implementation or interpretation of the present study may act as the authors of the publications. All those who have made a significant contribution should be mentioned as co-authors. In cases when the study participants made a significant contribution to a certain direction in the research project, they should be listed as the persons who made a significant contribution to this study.

4.6.2. The author should be confident that all the participants who have made a significant contribution to the research are presented as co-authors and those who did not participate in the study are not given as co-authors, moreover, all co-authors have seen and approved of the final version of the work and agreed to the submission of its publication.

4.7. Risks, people and animals, performing as objects to research

4.7.1 If the work involves the use of chemicals, procedures or equipment during the operation of which any unusual risks is possible, the author must clearly identify it in the manuscript.

4.7.2 If the work supposes participation of animals or humans as objects of study, authors should ensure that in the manuscript it is stated that all stages of the study comply with the legislation and regulations of research organizations, and approved by the relevant committees. The manuscript should clearly state that all people who have become objects of study submitted informed consent. It is always necessary to monitor compliance with rights to privacy.

4.8. Policy of disclosure and conflicts of interests

4.8.1 In their manuscript all authors are required to disclose financial or other existing conflicts of interests that may be perceived as influence on the results or conclusions presented in the work.

4.8.2 Examples of potential conflicts of interests that are required to be disclosed can include employment jobs, consulting, stock ownership, honoraria, providing expert opinions, patent application or patent registration, grants and other financial support. Potential conflicts of interests should be disclosed as early as possible.

4.9. Significant mistakes in published works

If the author finds mistakes or inaccuracies in the publication, the author must inform the editor of "Ultrasound & Functional Diagnostics" and interact with the editor for the quickest withdrawal of the publication for correction. If the Editor or Publisher have received information the publication contains significant mistakes from a third party that, the author is obliged to withdraw the work, or correct mistakes as soon as possible.

5. Responsibilities of Publishers

5.1 The Publisher should follow the principles and procedures to facilitate the execution of the editors, reviewers and authors of the journal "Ultrasound & Functional Diagnostics” ethical responsibilities in accordance with these requirements. The publisher must be sure that the potential income from advertising or reprints of production does not affect the Editors’ decision.

5.2. The publisher should support editors of "Ultrasound & Functional Diagnostics" in the examination of claims to the ethical aspects of published materials and help to interact with other journals and / or Publishers if it contributes to the execution of responsibilities of editors.

5.3. The publisher should promote good practices for conducting researches and implement industry standards to improve the ethical recommendations, withdrawal procedures and mistakes correction.

5.4 The Publisher should provide adequate legal support (conclusion or consultation) if necessary.

Founder

• Xxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxx 

Author fees

Publication in “Ultrasound & Functional Diagnostics" is free of charge for all the authors.

The journal doesn't have any Article processing charges.

The journal doesn't have any Article submission charges.

Disclosure and Conflict of Interest

Unpublished materials disclosed in a submitted manuscript must not be used in a reviewer’s own research without the express written consent of the author. Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not used for personal advantage.

Reviewers should not consider manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies, or institutions connected to the papers.

Plagiarism detection

“Ultrasound & Functional Diagnostics" 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

Prior to acceptance and publication in “Ultrasound & Functional Diagnostics", 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 “Ultrasound & Functional Diagnostics" 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)

Revenue Sources

The publication of the journal is financed by the funds of the parent organization, at the expense of the publisher, publication of advertising materials, publication of reprints, article processment charges.