Before you start writing an article, we recommend that you read the recommendations

1. https://www.cambridge.org/core/services/aop-file manager/file/5b44807ace5b3fca0954531e/CUP-Research-Publishing-Ethics-Guidelines-2019.pdf
2. https://publicationethics.org/files/u7141/1999pdf13.pdf
3. https://publicationethics.org/

Authors and Authors responsibilities

1. Substantial contributions to the conception or design of the work; or the acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data for the work; and/or
2. Drafting the work or revising it critically for important intellectual content; and
3. Final approval of the version to be published; and
4. Agreement to be accountable for all aspects of the work and to ensure that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work are appropriately investigated and resolved.

The corresponding author to be the person who handles the manuscript and correspondence during the publication process. We ask that the corresponding author confirm that they have the authority to act on behalf of all co-authors in all matters pertaining to publication of the manuscript including supplementary material. The corresponding author is responsible for obtaining such agreements and for informing the co-authors of the manuscript’s status throughout the submission, review, and publication process. In addition, the corresponding author also acts as the main point of contact for any enquiries (including those relating to the integrity of the work) after the paper is published. We encourage authors to list anyone who does not meet the criteria for authorship in an Acknowledgments section in their publication, for example to recognise the contributions of anyone who provided research or writing assistance. the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) also provides extensive resources on authorship and authorship disputes, and we encourage anyone involved in editorial decisions to familiarise themselves with these resources. We support our editors in dealing with any authorship disputes, including escalating or seeking advice on cases with COPE. We integrate with established and emerging industry standards to increase transparency in authorship (for example, ORCID). We support initiatives that enable transparency in authorship and contributorship such as CRediT taxonomy

Peer-review process

All manuscripts of articles submitted to the editorial office of the journal undergo mandatory double-blind review (the authors of the manuscript do not receive information about the reviewers, and the reviewer does not receive information about the authors of the manuscript).

1. Articles are reviewed by members of the editorial board and editorial board, as well as invited reviewers – leading experts in the relevant field of science from Russia and other countries. The decision on the choice of a particular reviewer for the examination of an article is made by the editor-in-chief, deputy editor-in-chief, scientific editor, editor-in-chief, editorial board. The review period is 3-5 weeks.
2. In the event of a conflict of interest, the reviewer has the right to refuse the review. Based on the results of the review of the manuscript, the reviewer accepts the recommendation to publish, not to publish or publish the manuscript after correcting the comments.
3. The editorial board of the journal sends the text of the reviews to the author. If there are comments and / or recommendations for revising the article, the editors recommend that the author / authors take them into account when revising the manuscript, which should not take more than 4 weeks from the moment of sending an email to the authors about the need to make changes. The article, revised by the author, is re-sent for review. In special cases, the editorial board may decide to increase the term for correcting the manuscript of the article.
4. If the authors refuse to revise the materials, the authors of the manuscript must notify the editorial board in writing or orally about the revocation of the article. In this case, the article is withdrawn from peer review / publication.
5. If the authors do not provide a revised version of the manuscript of the article within 4 weeks from the date the editorial office sends a message about the results of the review and recommendations, the manuscript of the article will be considered as newly submitted.
6. The editors conduct no more than four rounds of peer review for each manuscript. If, after four-fold revision of the manuscript, the reviewers or the editorial staff have significant comments to the text, then in this case the manuscript is rejected. The authors are notified accordingly.
7. If the author and reviewers have insoluble contradictions regarding the manuscript, the editorial staff, in agreement with the editorial board and the editor-in-chief, can send the manuscript for additional review. In conflict situations, the decision to publish a manuscript is made by the editor-in-chief at a meeting of the editorial board.
8. The decision to refuse publication of the 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 is not accepted for reconsideration. The message about the refusal to publish and the withdrawal of the manuscript from consideration is sent to the author by e-mail, the letter contains reviews and grounds for refusing to publish.
9. After the editorial board of the journal makes a decision on the admission of the article for publication, the editorial board informs the author about it and indicates the terms of publication.
10. The final decision on publication is made by the editorial board. In conflict situations, the decision is made by the editor-in-chief.
11. In case of inconsistency with the subject of the journal, the editors have the right to refuse to accept the manuscript of the article for reviewing.
12. The authors have the right to challenge the decision of the editorial board to refuse to publish the manuscript and to withdraw it from consideration. To do this, you should send an appeal to the editorial office addressed to the editor-in-chief. The appeal should state the reasons for the authors’ disagreement with the decision adopted (based on the conclusions of the reviewers) by the editorial board, give reasons in favor of revising the decision, and send a revised manuscript (if such revision is advisable). Consideration of controversial situations and requests of authors with a request to revise the decisions of the editorial board is carried out personally by the editor-in-chief at a meeting of the editorial board. The decisions made by the editor-in-chief are not subject to challenge.
13. The originals of reviews and manuscript review protocols are kept in the editorial office of the journal indefinitely.
14. Reviews of manuscripts (as well as correspondence between authors and the editors) are not published in the public domain and are used only in the internal workflow of the editors, as well as when communicating with authors.

Publication ethics

Production and falsification of data:
Data falsification means that the researcher did not actually conduct research, but falsified the data. Falsifying data means that the researcher performed an experiment, but then changed some of the data.

Plagiarism:
All articles sent to the editorial office of the journal HEAD AND NECK are subject to anti-plagiarism checks. Copying even one sentence from someone else’s manuscript or even one of the previously published sentences without proper citation is considered plagiarism.

Duplicating your own publications:
Dear Authors, It is unethical to post the same manuscript in several journals at the same time. This wastes the time of editors and reviewers and can damage your reputation and that of the journals if they are published in more than one journal. In case of submission of the same article to two or more peer-reviewed journals, later applications must be withdrawn.

Redundant publications:
This means the publication of many very similar manuscripts based on the same experiment. Combining your results into one very reliable article is likely to interest our journal. The editorial staff of HEAD AND NECK will reject your article if it is weak.

Incorrect author contribution or source citation:

All the listed authors had to make significant scientific contributions to the study of the manuscript and approve all of its statements. Be sure to list everyone who has made significant scientific contributions, including students and laboratory assistants. Do not “gift” authorship to those who did not contribute to the writing of the article. The International Committee of Medical Journal Editors has detailed guidelines on authorship that are useful to scientists in all fields: http://www.icmje.org/recommendations/browse/roles-and-responsibilities/defining-the-role-of-authors-and-contributors.html

Research with Humans or Animals

Research involving humans or animals should be approved by relevant ethics committee(s) and should conform to international ethical and legal standards for research. We also expect authors to respect human participants’ right to privacy, and to gain any necessary consent to publish before submitting to us.

Production and falsification of data:
Data falsification means that the researcher did not actually conduct research, but falsified the data. Falsifying data means that the researcher performed an experiment, but then changed some of the data.

Copyright and access

The copyright in the material on these pages is owned by or licensed to All-Russian Federation of the Specialists in Head & Neck Diseases, or reproduced with permission from other third-party copyright owners.

It may be downloaded and printed for personal reference, but not otherwise copied, altered in any way or transmitted to others (unless explicitly stated otherwise) without the written permission of Head and Neck. Russian Journal editorial board.

Hypertext links to other web locations are for the convenience of users and do not constitute any endorsement or authorisation by Head and Neck. Russian Journal editorial board.

Reporting claims of copyright infringement of Cambridge University Press publications.

If you would like to report an instance of copyright infringement in a Head and Neck. Russian Journal, please contact headneck@inbox.ru with details of the alleged infringement.

Please note that we cannot guarantee a response to your report. We review all reports received and take action where appropriate.

Access. All issues of Head and Neck. Russian Journal are free and available on the website of the journal at the link: https://en.hnj.science/archive/

• Archiving: all issues of Head and Neck. Russian Journal are available on the website of the journal at the link: https://en.hnj.science/archive/
• Ownership and management: The journal Head and Neck. Russian Journal is the property of the All-Russian Federation of the Specialists in Head & Neck Diseases
• The web site: https://www.hnj.science
• Publishing schedule

The journal Head and Neck. Russian Journal is published by the All-Russian Federation of the Specialists in Head & Neck Diseases

• Name of the journal: Head and Neck. Russian Journal