SCImago Journal & Country Rank

LEONID B. LAZEBNIK - Professor, Doctor of Medical Sciences, Editor-In-Chief of Experimental and Clinical Gastroenterology Journal, President of the Gastroenterological Scientific Society of Russia, Vice – President of the Russian Scientific Medical Society of Physicians.

EDUCATION
1965 - graduated from the Medical Faculty of the Moscow State Medical University
1965 – 1967 residency at the Department of Hospital Therapy MOLMI

ACADEMIC DEGREE
Doctor of Medical Sciences (1990)

ACADEMIC RANK
Professor (1993)

MEDICAL ACTIVITY
1993 - 2010  Chief Therapist of the Department of Health of Moscow.
1995 - 2001 Chief gerontologist of the Ministry of Health and Social Development of the Russian Federation.
2001- 2012 Director of the Central Research Institute of Gastroenterology under the Ministry of Health City of Moscow.
2012 – Professor of Outpatient Department, Faculty of Internal Medicine, Moscow State University of Medicine and Dentistry

TEACHING ACTIVITY
1970 – 1995 worked in the Moscow State University of Medicine and Dentistry NA A. I. Evdokimov as Assistant of the Department of Propaedeutics of Internal Medicine, Assistant and Associate Professor at the Department of Internal Diseases №2, Associate Professor and Professor at the Department of Propaedeutics of Internal Medicine of the Evening Faculty of Medicine.
1993-2001 – Head of the Department of Gerontology and Geriatrics of the Russian Medical Academy of Postgraduate Education
Since 2003 - Head of the Department of Gerontology and Geriatrics of the Moscow State University of Medicine and Dentistry NA A. I. Evdokimov.
Since 2014 - Professor of the Department of Polyclinic Therapy of the Moscow State University of Medicine and Dentistry NA A. I. Evdokimov

President of the Gastroenterological Scientific Society of Russia.
Vice – President of the Russian Scientific Medical Society of Physicians.
Editor-In-Chief of Experimental and Clinical Gastroenterology Journal.
Member of the editorial board of the "World Gastroenterology journal", "Clinical Gerontology", the Member of the Standing Committee on Education of the World Society of Gastroenterology and the American Gastroenterological Association

PROFESSIONAL AWARDS
Laureate of the Moscow Government Prize (1999), City of Moscow
The Russian Academy of Medical Sciences Award on Cardiology named after A.L. Myasnikov (2000)
The European Prize "Name in the Science - 2012" (United Kingdom).
The International Award "International Health Care Award - 2016» - World's Biggest Scientific Events (India)

PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE AND RESEARCH INTERESTS cover problems of internal medicine, gerontology, cardiology and gastroenterology. Professor Leonid Lazebnik carried out series of studies that examine the features of diseases of cardiovascular, respiratory and digestive systems in elderly and senile age. The package of state documents regulating the activities of gerontology services, and the first guidelines for medical geriatricians, as well as Federal standards for the diagnosis and treatment of acid-dependent conditions, non-alcoholic fatty liver disease were developed and published under the guidance of professor Leonid Lazebnik.

As a Main Researcher Leonid Lazebnik participated in several studies: Syst-Eur, Value, Mills I,II, Live, Copernicus, Заслон, Мергэ, Rome Foundation Global Epidemiology Study

Professor Leonid Lazebnik is the author of over 700 articles and 18 monographs and books. Such as: “Practical Geriatrics", "Hypertension in the elderly", "Coronary heart disease in the elderly", “Geriatric hematology”, “Geriatric Nephrology”, “Digestive diseases in the elderly”, “Chronic ischemic disease of the digestive system”, “Selected chapters of Geriatric Urology”, “Handbook for diagnosis and treatment of diseases in the elderly”.)   Clinical Pharmacology (Monograph "Donator of nitric oxide", “Receptor blockers to Angiotensin II”) and others.

CONTACT DETAILS:
Mob. Tel.: +7 (985) 920-83-42
Tel.: +7 (499) 553-68-03
E-mail: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

For Authors:

All manuscripts for articles, original research reports, editorials, comments, reviews, book reviews, and letters that are submitted to the journal must be accompanied by a conflict of interest disclosure statement or a declaration by the authors that they do not have any conflicts of interest to declare. All articles that are published in the journal must be accompanied by this conflict of interest disclosure statement or a statement that the authors have replied that they have no conflicts of interest to declare. If a journal prints unsigned editorials, they should not have been written by anyone with a conflict of interest.

To facilitate this policy, all authors must privately disclose ‘ALL their potential conflicts of interest’ to the editors of the journal at the time of submission. These include all financial and non-financial interests and relationships (see definitions provided a little later in the text), direct employment with a private sector entity (whether full or part-time), and service on private sector and non-profit Boards and advisory panels, whether paid or unpaid. Authors should also disclose any conflict of interest that may have influenced either the conduct or the presentation of the research to the editors, including but not limited to close relationships with those who might be helped or hurt by the publication, academic interests and rivalries, and any personal, religious or political convictions relevant to the topic at hand.

In the article, the authors must include a draft statement that discloses all relevant conflicts of interest and affiliations. The relevance of financial conflicts of interest with private firms is defined as a relationship of any value with a firm that has a stake in the subject of the manuscript or its competitors. Relevance for patents is defined as any invention or pending invention connected in any way to the subject. As relevance is often in the eye of the beholder, one must err on the side of full disclosure when drafting the disclosure statement. Editors will check a draft against the private financial disclosure statement and initiate discussions toward possible adjustments, if necessary.

What to report: Any financial relationship from the past three years (dating from the month of submission) of any size, should be disclosed. These potential conflicts of interest include:

-time or part-time

which you have not worked). These include substantial grants from trade associations and non-profit (50% or more) or funded by private sector firms

ersarial proceeding (this does not include testimony as a factual witness in a civil or criminal case)

d ‘sector’ funds or stock options, including those of immediate family members, but excluding diversified mutual funds and investment trusts Membership of private sector, scientific or other advisory Boards, whether paid or unpaid

In addition, any current negotiations regarding future employment or current job offers, either full- or part-time, must be disclosed.

In disclosing these financial arrangements to the editors, the authors can include dollar amounts, albeit they will not be printed in the journal. Editors may choose to exclude this information from the publication, but in no case should an editor or author consider an arrangement irrelevant based on its size alone.

Non-Financial Conflicts of Interest:

Authors may have strong views about the article being submitted for publication. The authors must consider disclosing these views and the editors may choose to print any affiliations or expressions from these views that may be relevant. These may be personal, political or intellectual, and may include any expression of strongly held views relevant to the subject of submission. Such disclosures may be original or they may be references to opinions previously expressed in books or monographs, opposite editorials (op-eds) or public comments, or to some prior sworn testimony or lobbying of legislators or legislative bodies. Disclosable non-financial conflicts of interest will also include membership or affiliation to non-governmental organizations that have an interest in the submission.

How do I Make a Declaration?

If you are submitting your article for publishing in a journal that requires you to make a ‘Declaration of Conflicting Interests’, please include such a declaration at the end of your manuscript, following any acknowledgments and prior to the references, under the heading ‘Conflict of Interest Statement’.

If no declaration is made, the following will be printed under this heading in your article: ‘None Declared’. Alternatively, you may wish to state that ‘The author(s) declare(s) that there is no conflict of interest’.

 

 

ISSN:1682-8658 (Print)
Contact : +7 9175619505,
E-Mail: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

 Approved by
  Chief Editor,
Professor, PhD, MD
Leonid Lazebnik

14 April 2012

PEER REVIEW

All manuscripts are subject to peer review and are expected to meet standards of academic excellence. Submissions will be considered by an editor and “if not rejected right away” by peer- reviewers, whose identities will remain anonymous to the authors.

REVIEW PROCESS

Authors should be aware that manuscripts will be screened upon submission. Only manuscripts which fully comply with the submission requirements outlined and in which the level of English is of an acceptable standard will enter the peer review process.

First submission. Once successful submission of a manuscript has taken place, an acknowledgement will be sent by e-mail to the corresponding author. The number of the manuscript should be used by the authors in all communications with the Editorial Office. All the manuscripts will be reviewed by the Editors and, in most cases, by other expert reviewers. After review, the corresponding author will be notified by means of a letter of the decision to accept or reject the manuscript for publication. This letter may include reviewers' comments, and will be sent only via email.

Resubmission of manuscripts. Authors may be invited to submit a revised version of the manuscript for further review. This invitation does not imply, in any case, that the revised version will be accepted for publication. Revised manuscripts must be received by the Editorial Office within three months of the date of the first decision, otherwise they will be considered withdrawn. Instructions for resubmission of manuscripts are identical to those for the first submission, with the following additions:

  • The cover letter must state that the revised manuscript has been modified according to the comments made by the Editor and the Reviewers.
  • All changes made in the revised manuscript should be underlined or highlighted.



A point by point reply to the Editor's and/or reviewers' criticisms must be uploaded along with the new cover letter, revised manuscript, figures and tables.

DUTIES OF REVIEWERS


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 ofmany that all scholars who wish to contribute to publications have an obligation to do a fair share of reviewing.

      • 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 "Experimental and Clinical Gastroenterology" and excuse himself from the review process.
      • 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.
      • Standard and objectivity – Reviews should be conducted objectively. Personal criticism of the author is inappropriate. Referees should express their views clearly with supporting arguments.
      • 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.
Article Number  
Title  
Layout/Organization
Criteria Excellent Good Poor Comments
Paper structure        
 
(organization into sections, subsections, appendix)
Clearly stated purpose and objective(s)        
Transitions used        
Introduction & conclusion focus clearly on the main point        
Development & Support
Criteria Excellent Good Poor Comments
Major ideas/topics received enough attention and explanation        
Supporting material persuasive        
Adequate references and resource material        
Style
Criteria Excellent Good Poor Comments
Topic and level of formality appropriate for audience        
Sentences and words varied        
Grammar and Mechanics
Criteria Excellent Good Poor Comments
Grammar        
Punctuation        
Spelling        
         
Recommended Changes
Please recommend specific changes in the writing.
1.

2.

3.
Reviewer Comments
Final Decision Accept □  Modify □  Refuse □  Recommend to other journal □
Please write down your final opinion for this article.

 

POLICY ON REVOCATION OR CORRECTION OF ARTICLES

Editors of journals should consider the opinion of the publication, if:
they have clear evidence of the unreliability of the information published, either as a result of conscious actions (for example, falsification of data), or due to good faith errors (for example, errors in calculations or experiments);
the findings have been previously published in another publication and there is no proper reference, authorization and justification for re-publication (i.e. duplicate publication).);
it is plagiarism;
describes unethical research.
Editors of journals should consider the concerns, if:
they received information about the authors ' inappropriate actions, but there is no clear evidence of such behavior;
there are arguments that the results of the work are unreliable, and the institution in which the authors work is not going to find out the truth;
they believe that the investigation into the alleged violations committed by the authors in connection with the publication has either not been or will not be fair, impartial and convincing;
the authors ' violations are being investigated, but the results are not expected soon enough. Journal editors should consider making amendments if:
a small part of the rest of the high-quality publication is unreliable (especially because of conscientious errors);
the list of authors / sponsors contains errors (i.e., it does not contain someone who is worthy to be an author, or a person who does not meet the authorship criteria).
In most cases, a review is not appropriate if:
authorship needs to be changed, but there is no reason to doubt the validity of the findings. Recall notifications should:
if possible, have a hyperlink to the article (in all electronic versions);
clearly identify the article you are withdrawing (for example, include its title and author in the title of the withdrawal notification);
be clearly defined as a review (i.e. different from other types of amendments and comments);
be published as soon as possible to minimize the negative effects of false publications;
be freely available to all readers (that is, be not in limited access or available only to subscribers); specify who withdraws article;
specify the reasons for the recall (to distinguish conscious misconduct from fair errors); avoid potentially defamatory or libellous statements.

 

Purpose of withdrawal

Feedback is a mechanism for correcting published information and alerting readers to publications that contain serious flaws or erroneous data that cannot be trusted. Data inaccuracy may be the result of a good faith misconception or a deliberate violation.

Reviews are also used to warn readers about duplicate publications (i.e., when authors submit the same data in multiple publications), plagiarism, and to hide important conflicts of interest that may affect the interpretation of the data or recommendations for their use.

The main purpose of the feedback is to correct the published information and ensure its integrity, and not to punish the authors who have committed violations.

What form should the review take?

A revocation notice must contain the reasons and basis of opinion, to distinguish between violations and bona fide errors; it also needs to be specified person withdrawing the article. Notifications must be published in all versions of the journal (i.e. printed and / or electronic). You must include the authors and title of the retracted article in the title of the withdrawal notice.

Withdrawn articles should be clearly marked as such in all electronic sources (for example, on the website of the journal and in any bibliographic databases). Editors are responsible for ensuring that the withdrawn publications are marked so that they are well identified as such by all bibliographic databases (which should also include a reference to the withdrawn article). The notice of withdrawal shall be known to every electronic search engine of the withdrawn publication.

Revoked articles should not be removed from printed copies of the journal (for example, in libraries) or from electronic archives, but their status as withdrawn should be specified as clearly as possible.

Which publications should be withdrawn?

If only a small part of the article contains invalid data, especially as a result of a good – faith error, the best way to solve the problem is to make a correction or record in the list of typos. (The term "typo" usually refers to a technical error made by a journal. The term "correction" (or "correction") usually refers to an author's error.) Partial review is not appropriate because it makes it difficult for readers to determine the status of the article and the reliability of its parts.
Similarly, if only a small part of the article (e.g., a few suggestions in the discussion) is plagiarism, editors should consider whether it would be better for readers (and the author of the original work) if the article were amended (with correct references to the source) than if the entire article was withdrawn in its entirety, which may contain meaning and original data in its other parts.

Reviews are usually recommended for publications with such serious violations (for any reason) that their findings cannot be considered reliable.

In cases of duplicate publications (i.e. when the authors have published the same data or article in more than one journal without proper justification, permission and cross-references), the journal, the first to publish the article, may issue a notice of the duplicate publication, but it should withdraw the article only if its conclusions are incorrect. Any journals that subsequently print a duplicate article must revoke the article and provide a reason for revocation.

If the article serves more than one journal at the same time, was adopted and is printed in both journals (either electronic or in printed form) at the same time, the priority can be set on the date on which the authors signed a publishing license or the contract on transfer of copyright.

In cases of partial duplication (that is, when authors present some new findings in an article that also contains a significant amount of previously published information), editors should decide what is best for readers: to withdraw the entire article or to issue a notice of duplicate publication indicating previously published parts and cross-referencing the previous work. This will depend on the amount of duplication. Editors should keep in mind that the main purpose of reviews is to correct the published information and ensure its integrity, and not to punish authors – violators.

Only published articles are subject to recall. Recommendations for handling duplicate material found prior to publication can be found in the appropriate COPE [http://publicationethics.org/files/u2/01A_Redundant_Submitted.pdf] The publication of the final version on the website is a publication, even if the article does not appear (or will not appear) in print. If an article is withdrawn before the printed version appears in the journal, the electronic version should be stored on the journal's website with a clear notice of withdrawal and included in the bibliographic databases (for example, with a digital object identifier [DOI] or other permanent link that determines its location), even if it does not appear in the printed version of the journal and thus will not be placed on the page. This is necessary because researchers could already refer to it and cite electronic versions of the article, and they should be warned about its withdrawal.

Who should conduct the review?

Articles can be withdrawn by their author (s) or editor. In some cases, reviews are carried out jointly on behalf of the journal owner (e.g., the scientific society or the publisher). However, since the responsibility for the content of the journal rests with the editor, he/she should always make a final decision on the withdrawal of the article. The editors of the journals to withdraw the publication (or publish an expression of regret), even if all or some of the authors refuse to retract the publication.

When should a publication be withdrawn?

Publications should be withdrawn as soon as the editor of the journal is sure that the publication has serious violations and contains false information (or is duplicate or plagiarism). Prompt feedback should minimize the number of researchers who cite erroneous works, draw conclusions from them or come to incorrect conclusions, for example, using duplicate publications in meta-analyses or similar procedures.
If the editors have strong evidence of the need to withdraw the article, they should withdraw the publication immediately, without postponing the review only because the authors do not want to cooperate with them. However, if the allegation of violations regarding potential recall leads to disciplinary hearings or internal investigations of the institutions where the study was conducted, it is necessary to wait for the results before the review is carried out (but in the meantime it is necessary to publish an expression of regret to warn readers – see below).

How should the editors act if the evidence of unreliability of the publication is not sufficient?

If it is not possible to obtain conclusive evidence of the credibility of the publication (e.g. if the authors provide conflicting information, the institution where the authors work, refuse to investigate alleged violations or to make public the results of such investigations, or if the investigations have not been conducted fairly or have taken an unreasonably long time), the editors should publish an expression of doubt, and not withdraw the publication immediately.

Such expressions of doubt, as with revocation notices, must accurately refer to the original publication (i.e., have a hyperlink to the electronic databases and include the author and title of the original publication in the title of the notice) and contain the reasons for the doubt.

If more convincing proof of the publication's credibility is later made available, the expression of doubt should be replaced by a notice of withdrawal (if the article was determined to be unreliable) or a statement of justification related to the expression of doubt (if the credibility of the article was proved and the author's reputation restored).

Can revocation be used in cases of disputed authorship?

Sometimes authors ask to withdraw an article when authorship is disputed after publication. If there is no reason to doubt the validity of the findings or the reliability of the data, the publication should not be withdrawn solely on the basis of authorship disputes. In such cases, the editor of the journal should inform the persons involved in the dispute that he/she can not make court decisions in such cases, but will be ready(ready) to publish the corrected list of authors, if the authors / co-authors (or their institutions) provide appropriate evidence that such a change is justified.

(On the issue of authorship disputes before publication, see the relevant COPE scheme. http://publicationethics.org/files/u2/04A_Author_Add_Submitted.pdf I http://publicationethics.org/files/u2/04B_Author_Remove_Submitted.pdf
Do authors have the right to refuse a withdrawn publication?

If the review is related to the actions of several, but not all, authors of the publication, this must be reported in the notification of the review. However, most editors believe that authorship entails some degree of joint and several liability for the integrity of the research, so it is unacceptable for authors to refuse a retracted publication even if they were not directly responsible for the violations.

Are there grounds for trial if the author is suing the journal for revocation or for refusing to withdraw the publication?

Authors who do not agree with the withdrawal of their articles (or authors who have been refused to withdraw the publication) sometimes threaten editors of journals with lawsuits. The desire to avoid litigation can lead to the refusal of editors to withdraw the article, especially in the face of opposition from the authors.

Journal instructions for authors should provide an explanation of the revocation procedure and a description of the conditions under which articles can be withdrawn. This information should be included (e.g. in the form of links) in the publication agreements and brought to the attention of the authors. However, even if the agreement on the publication or the journal's instructions do not establish the specific conditions of the review, the authors usually do not have grounds for taking legal action against the magazine for opinion if the opinion an investigation was conducted and performed all the procedures.

However, legal advice can be useful for correctly formulating a notice of withdrawal or expressing doubt, ensuring that there is no defamation or slander. However, notice of withdrawal should always indicate the reason (s) for the withdrawal in order to distinguish a good faith error from a violation.

Where possible, editors should negotiate with the authors and try to agree with them a language that is clear and informative to the readers and acceptable to all parties. If the consent of the authors with the wording of the statement of revocation is received, this provides protection against allegations of defamation. However, lengthy negotiations on language should not unnecessarily delay the publication of a review, and editors should publish a statement of withdrawal even if consensus was not reached.

Additional literature

ICMJEguidelines [Recommendations of the International Committee of medical journal editors]: http://www.icmje.org/publishing_2corrections.html

SoxHC & Rennyed. Researchmisconduct, retraction, andcleansingthemedicalliterature: lessonsfromthePoehlmancase [research Irregularities, reviews, and cleaning up medical literature: lessons from the Poelman case]. Annals of Internal Medicine 2006;144:609-13

Nath SB, Marcus SC & Druss BG. Retractions in the research literature: misconduct or mistakes? [Feedback in the research literature: violations or errors?] MJA2006;185:152-4

BuddJM. Sievert M, Schultz TR. Phenomena of retraction [recall Phenomenon]. JAMA1998;280:296-7

2009 COPE. This article is publicly available and distributed Under the terms of the creative Commons Attribution License ("attribution License"), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, attribution and source.

September 2009.

    Elizabeth Wager, Virginia Barbour, Steven Yentis, Sabine Kleinert

 

 

ISSN:1682-8658 (Print)
Contact : +7 9175619505,
E-Mail: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

 Approved by
  Chief Editor,
Professor, PhD, MD
Leonid Lazebnik

14 April 2012
THE PUBLISHING ETHICS

            Journal Experimental and Clinical Gastroenterology follows the Uniform Requirements for Manuscripts Submitted to Biomedical Journals, developed by the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors available at www .icmje.org.
The Publishing Ethics 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) and Kleinert S & Wager E (2011) Responsible research publication: international standards for editors. A position statement developed at the 2nd World Conference on Research Integrity, Singapore, July 22-24, 2010.

            Introduction
The ethical rules of the journal should be followed by all participants in the process of publishing research records: authors, reviewers, editors, members of the editorial board, editorial staff, as well as individuals and organizations who may consider themselves interested in the information provided by the Experimental and Clinical Gastroenterology Journal.
As guardians and stewards of the research record, editors of the journal should encourage authors to strive for, and adhere themselves to, the highest standards of publication ethics.   Furthermore, editors and publishers are in a unique position to indirectly foster responsible conduct of research through their policies and processes. To achieve the maximum effect within the research community, ideally all editors should adhere to universal standards and good practices.
Publisher has a supporting, investing and nurturing role in the scholarly communication process but is also ultimately responsible for ensuring that the best practice is followed in its publications.
Publisher  takes its duties of guardianship over the scholarly record extremely seriously.

1.         General duties and responsibilities of the chief editor and editorial staff
1.1.  Editors should regard themselves as part of the wider professional editorial community, keep themselves abreast of relevant policies and developments, and ensure their editorial staff is trained and kept informed of relevant issues.
1.2. Publication decision. The Editor of  "Experimental and Clinical Gastroenterology" 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 "Experimental and Clinical Gastroenterology" 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.
1.3. 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.
1.4. Confidentiality – The editor and any editorial staff of "Experimental and Clinical Gastroenterology" Journal 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.
1.5. Confidentiality. The editor and any editorial staff of "Experimental and Clinical Gastroenterology" Journal 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.
1.6. Disclosure and Conflicts of interest
1.6.1. 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.
1.6.2. 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.
1.7.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.
1.8. 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.

2.    Duties of Reviewers
2.1. 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.
2.2.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 "Experimental and Clinical Gastroenterology" and excuse himself from the review process.
2.3.  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.
2.4. Standard and objectivity – Reviews should be conducted objectively. Personal criticism of the author is inappropriate. Referees should express their views clearly with supporting arguments.
2.5. 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.
2.6. Disclosure and Conflict of Interest
2.6.1. 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.
2.6.2. 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.
3. Duties of Authors
3.1.Reporting standards
3.1.1. 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.
3.1.2. Review and professional publication articles should also be accurate and objective, and editorial 'opinion’ works should be clearly identified as such.
3.2.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.
3.3.Originality and Plagiarism
3.3.1. 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.
3.3.2. 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.
3.4.   Multiple, Redundant or Concurrent Publication
3.4.1. 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.
3.4.2. In general, an author should not submit for consideration in another journal a previously published paper.
3.4.3. 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.
3.5. 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.
3.6. Authorship of the Paper
3.6.1. 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.
3.6.2. 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.
3.7. Hazards and Human or Animal Subjects
3.7.1. 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.
3.7.2. 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.
3.8. Critically assess and require a high standard of ethical conduct of research
Especially in biomedical research but also in social sciences and humanities, ethical conduct of research is paramount in the protection of humans and animals. Ethical oversight, appropriate consent procedures, and adherence to relevant laws are required from authors. Editors need to be vigilant to concerns in this area.
3.8.1 Ethics approval and ethical conduct
Editors should generally require approval of a study by an ethics committee (or institutional review board) and the assurance that it was conducted according to the Declaration of Helsinki for medical research in humans but, in addition, should be alert to areas of concern in the ethical conduct of research. This may mean that a paper is sent to peer reviewers with particular expertise in this area, to the journal’s ethics committee if there is one, or that editors require further reassurances or evidence from authors or their institutions.
Papers may be rejected on ethical grounds even if the research had ethics committee approval.
3.8.2 Consent (to take part in research)
If research is done in humans, editors should ensure that a statement on the consent procedure is included in the paper. In most cases, written informed consent is the required norm. If there is any concern about the consent procedure, if the research is done in vulnerable groups, or if there are doubts about the ethical conduct, editors should ask to see the consent form and enquire further from authors, exactly how consent was obtained.
3.8.3 Consent (for publication)
For all case reports, small case series, and images of people, editors should require the authors to have obtained explicit consent for publication (which is different from consent to take part in research). This consent should inform participants which journal the work will be published in, make it clear that, although all efforts will be made to remove unnecessary identifiers, complete anonymity is not possible, and ideally state that the person described has seen and agreed with the submitted paper.
The signed consent form should be kept with the patient file rather than sent to the journal (to maximise data protection and confidentiality, see paragraph 3.8.4). There may be exceptions where it is not possible to obtain consent, for example when the person has died. In such cases, a careful consideration about possible harm is needed and out of courtesy attempts should be made to obtain assent from relatives. In very rare cases, an important public health message may justify publication without consent if it is not possible despite all efforts to obtain consent and the benefit of publication outweighs the possible harm.
3.8.4 Data protection and confidentiality
Editors should critically assess any potential breaches of data protection and patient confidentiality. This includes requiring properly informed consent for the actual research presented, consent for publication where applicable (see paragraph 3.8.5), and having editorial policies that comply with guidelines on patient confidentiality.
3.8.5 Adherence to relevant laws and best practice guidelines for ethical conduct
Editors should require authors to adhere to relevant national and international laws and best practice guidelines where applicable, for example when undertaking animal research. Editors should encourage registration of clinical trials.
3.9. Disclosure and Conflicts of Interest
3.9.1. Editors should have policies that require all authors to declare any relevant financial and non-financial conflicts of interest and publish at least those that might influence a reader’s perception of a paper, alongside the paper. The funding source of the research should be declared and published, and the role of the funding source in the conception, conduct, analysis, and reporting of the research should be stated and published.
3.9.2. 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.
3.9.3. 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.
3.9.4. 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 the “Experimental and Clinical Gastroenterology” journal or the publisher and cooperate with the editor 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.
4. Duties of the Publisher (and if relevant, Society)
4.1. The publisher should adopt policies and procedures that support editors, reviewers and authors of the “Experimental and Clinical Gastroenterology” journal 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.
4.2. The publisher should support the editors of the “Experimental and Clinical Gastroenterology” journal in the review of complaints raised concerning ethical issues and help communications with other journals and/or publishers where this is useful to editors.
4.3. The publisher should develop codes of practice and inculcate industry standards for best practice on ethical matters, errors and retractions.
The section is prepared according to the files (http://health.elsevier.ru/attachments/editor/file/ethical_code_final.pdf) of Elsevier publisher (https://www.elsevier.com/) and files (http://publicationethics.org/resources) from Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE - http://publicationethics.org/).          
Kleinert S & Wager E (2011) 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. Imperial College Press / World Scientific Publishing, Singapore (pp 317-28). (ISBN 978-981-4340-97-7)

 Policy statements on data sharing According to the latest recommendations of the ICMJE, when submitting an article containing data on a clinical study, the authors should submit a separate document "Statement on data sharing". Since January 1, 2019,
this document is mandatory. Currently, the form for its completion in Russian is under development.

The example of a published article in the journal