Aim and Scope

The "Epidemiology and Vaccinal Prevention" journal aims to improve epidemiological knowledge and public health by publishing high-quality research papers and articles focused on innovative strategies about epidemiology and preventing communicable and non-communicable diseases. The audience includes, but is not limited to, epidemiologists, researchers, microbiologists, immunologists, physicians, and medical students.

The "Epidemiology and Vaccinal Prevention" journal is particularly interested in knowledge of epidemiology and public health-related studies. The Journal has special focuses on:

1. Epidemiology of communicable, parasitic and non-communicable diseases:

2. Vaccination against communicable, non-communicable and parasitic vaccine-preventable diseases

Existing vaccines improvement and development of new ones;

Vaccine safety;

Immunization of different populations;

Raising awareness of vaccination and vaccine hesitancy management;

Practical guidance on vaccine use;

Expansion of the national preventive vaccination schedule.

3. Epidemiological characteristics and prevention of high-threat pathogens

Diseases/Agents

4. Epidemiological safety of medical activity

5. Epidemiological characteristics and prevention of healthcare-associated infections (HAI):
terminology and types of HAI;

laboratory diagnostics of infections in medical institutions;

HAI prevention as part of the general quality control and medical activity safety system implemented in the Russian public health service.

Section Policies

Publication Frequency

6 issues per year

Open Access Policy

"Epidemiology and Vaccinal Prevention"  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 (section updated on 08.09.2019)

A bilateral anonymous ("double blind") peer review method is mandatory for processing of all scientific manuscripts submitted to the editorial staff of «Epidemiology and Vaccinal Prevention». This implies that manuscripts authors do not know the reviewers and receive letters with comments signed by the editor-in-chief.

1. The members of the editorial board and council, as well as ad hoc reviewers - leading Russian and foreign experts in the respective area of medical science perform peer reviews. Editor-in-chief, deputy editor-in-chief, scientific editor and managing editor choose readers for peer review. Reviewing takes 2 to 4 weeks, though in some cases the reviewing period may be extended at the reviewer’s request.

2. Each article is sent to 2 reviewers.

3. Reviewer has an option to abnegate the assessment should any conflict of interests arise that may affect perception or interpretation of the manuscript.

Upon the scrutiny, the reviewer is expected to present one of the following recommendations to the editorial board (each reviewer’s decision shall be justified):

    - the article should be published “as is”;

    - the article should be published after elimination of drawbacks marked  by the reviewer;

    - the article should be additionally reviewed by another expert;

    - the article cannot be published in the journal.

4. If the reviewer has recommended any refinements, the editorial staff would forward to the author the text of the review asking him/her either to implement the corrections when preparing a new version of the article, or to dispute them reasonably (in full or in part). Authors are kindly requested to complete their revision within 2 months after receipt of the respective email  and resubmit the adapted manuscript for final evaluation.

5. We politely request that the editor be notified verbally or in writing should the author decide to refuse from publishing the manuscript. In case the author fails to send the updated version  within 3 months after forwarding the review, even if there is no data on the refusal from article adaptation, the editorial board takes the manuscript off the register and notifies the author accordingly.

6. If the author and reviewers meet insoluble contradictions regarding revision of the manuscript, the editorial board is entitled to forward the manuscript for additional reviewing. The editor-in-chief resolves the conflict by his own authority at editorial board meetings.

The forwarded articles are checked using the Antiplagiat system. Should any illegal plagiarism be revealed, the author is sent a letter requiring to explain the cause. The article may be rejected or  retracted, if already published.

7. The editorial board reaches the final decision to reject a manuscript on the hearing according to reviewers’ recommendations. The board does not accept previously rejected manuscripts for re-evaluation. The author is notified about rejection by e-mail.

8. Upon the decision to accept the manuscript for publishing, the editorial staff notifies the authors of the scheduled date of publication.

9. Kindly note that positive review does not guarantee the acceptance, as final decision in all cases lies with the editorial board. By his authority, editor-in-chief rules final solution of every conflict.

10. Original reviews of submitted manuscripts remain deposited for 5 years.

 

Indexation

 

Articles in «Epidemiology and Vaccinal Prevention» 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). More than 17000 Russian journals have been published on elibrary by 2020.
• 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.
• Cyberleninka
• EBSCO
• SOCIONET
• WorldCat

Publishing Ethics (section updated on 28.01.2020)

When taking decisions and settling potential disputes, “Epidemiology and Vaccinal Prevention” adheres to the international rules regulating ethical relationships between all the parties of the publication process: authors, editors, reviewers, the publisher and the founder.

Provisions of this section are based on the recommendations issued by Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), Publication Ethics and Publication Malpractice Statement of Elsevier, and Declaration of the Association of Scientific Editors and Publishers “Ethical Principles of Scientific Publications”.

1. Introduction

1.1. Publishing articles in peer reviewed journals is not only a simple means of scientific communication, but contributed a lot to the development of the respective sphere of scientific knowledge. Thus, it is important to lay down the standards of expected ethical behavior of all parties concerned: authors, journal editors, peer reviewers, the publisher and the scientific society for «Epidemiology and Vaccinal Prevention».

1.2. The Publisher not only supports scientific communication and invests to the process, but is also responsible for ensuring that best practice is followed in its publications.

1.3. The editorial staff takes its duties of guardianship over the scholarly record extremely seriously. Our journal programmes record «the minutes of science» and we recognise 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. The Editor of «Epidemiology and Vaccinal Prevention»  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 scientific society. 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 «Epidemiology and Vaccinal Prevention» 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 the editorial board of «Epidemiology and Vaccinal Prevention» 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. The 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 with the manuscripts.

2.5. The editor who has presented convincing evidence that the statements or conclusions in a published paper are erroneous should notify the publisher (and/or the respective scientific 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 – The editor together with the publisher (or the respective scientific society) should take reasonably responsive measures when ethical complaints have been presented concerning a submitted manuscript or published paper. 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.The 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 reviewer 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 «Epidemiology and Vaccine Prevention» 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. Reviewers 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’ 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. 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. Authors 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, authors 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.

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 «Epidemiology and Vaccinal Prevention» journal and cooperate with the Editor to retract or correct the paper asap. 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 asap.

5. Duties of the Publisher

5.1. The publisher should adopt policies and procedures that support editors, reviewers and authors of «Epidemiology and Vaccinal Prevention» 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 «Epidemiology and Vaccinal Prevention» 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. The publisher should develop codes of practice and inculcate industry standards for best practice on ethical matters, errors and retractions.

5.4. The publisher should provide specialized legal support (opinion and advice), if necessary.

The section is prepared according to the files of Elsevier scientific and medical publisher and the files of http://publicationethics.org/resources of the International Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE - http://publicationethics.org/).

Founder

NP "NASCI" – Noncommercial partnership "National Association of the Specialists in Control of Health Care-Associated Infections"

Author fees

Publication in «Epidemiology and Vaccinal Prevention» is free of charge for all the authors.

The journal doesn't have any Article preparation, submission and printing charges

Disclosure and Conflict of Interest (section updated on 08.09.2019)

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

The forwarded articles are checked using the Antiplagiat system. If multiple cases of plagiarism are identified, the COPE guidelines on plagiarism will apply.

Preprint and postprint Policy (section updated on 08.09.2019)

As part of submission process, authors are required to confirm that the article has not been previously published or submitted. When referencing an article published in «Epidemiology and Vaccinal Prevention», the publisher suggests adding a link (full URL) to journal's website.

Articles posted earlier on author’s private or public websites, not related to other publishers are considered.

Principles on informed consent and Human Rights Policy

Informed consent provision

The journal "Epidemiology and Vaccinal Prevention" relies on the principles of 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 provision

When presenting the results of experimental research involving human subjects, the authors should indicate whether the procedures performed adhered to the ethical standards prescribed in the Declaration of Helsinki. If the study was conducted without adherence to the principles of the Declaration, the authors should justify the chosen approach to the study and guarantee that the ethics committee of the organisation in which the study was conducted approved the chosen approach.

Advertising and reprint Policy (section updated on 28.01.2020)

The journal "Epidemiology and Vaccinal Prevention" is published on the means of advertising, but it eliminates the intervention of advertisers in the editorial policy.

The Publisher is engaged in attracting advertising, which, according to the Agreement with the Editor-in-Chief, does not involve and does not affect the work of the editorial council, editorial board and editorial staff.

The Publisher has the following restrictions in relation to advertising: advertising modules must comply with the ethics and thematic focus of the journal and must not exceed 10% of the total volume of the publication; Advertising must not deceive or mislead, must not exaggerate the real characteristics of the advertised product and must not include any content offensive to a gender, religion or race.

The journal has the right to refuse to post any advertising message for any reason. Only the Editor-in-Chief and the editorial board of the journal make the decision on the publication of advertising.

Commercial advertising will not be placed next to any editorial or article where the advertised product is discussed and does not contain links to the issue of the journal in which it is placed.

Articles describing research and experience with the use of immunobiological preparations are considered on a general basis.

The financial support of publication, as well as a conflict of interest and the coincidence or non-coincidence of the views of the authors and the manufacturer, must be reported at the end of the article.

Reprints are published only with permission of the Chief Editor and in original form only. The reprint customer only pays for prepress and printing costs.

ISSN 2073-3046 (Print)
ISSN 2619-0494 (Online)