Russian Bulletin of Obstetrician-Gynecologist

Responsibilities of the Editorial Board

Ethical standards

The Editorial Board of the journal complies with the ethical standards approved by the international scientific community. The Editorial Board uses the Recommendations for the Conduct, Reporting, Editing and Publication of Scholarly Work in Medical Journals of the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors and recommendations of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).

Editorial decision-making

The Editorial Board is responsible for making decisions which of the submitted manuscripts will be accepted for publication. The Editorial Board makes the decision regarding a publication based on the journal’s policy, taking into account the current authors’ rights legislation and avoiding defamation and plagiarism. The editorial evaluation of the manuscript is independent of race, ethnicity and gender, religion, citizenship, or political views of the authors. Decision whether to publish an article or not is based exclusively on its scientific relevance, originality, clarity of presentation, and correspondence of the topic to journal’s specialization.

Confidentiality

All the Editorial Board members are responsible for disclosing any information about the submitted manuscript to individuals other than authors, peer reviewers, potential peer reviewers, or publishers.

Conflict of interest

The unpublished materials disclosed in the submitted manuscript cannot be used by the Editorial Board members for their own research without written permission from the authors.

Plagiarism, data falsification, and error correction

In case of an ethical complaint or a conflict situation regarding the manuscript or the published article, the Editorial Board should undertake reasonable countermeasures, together with the publisher, to restore the violated rights. If errors are revealed, the Editorial Board should assist in publishing corrections or refutations. Each reported case of unethical behavior will be considered, even if submitted several years after the article had been published.

The editorial board is guided by the following policy regarding the retraction of publications (download .pdf).

Reviewer responsibilities

Contribution to editorial decision-making

The review process is aimed at facilitating the Editorial Board in editorial decision-making and may also help the author to improve the manuscript.

Timeliness (promptness)

If a reviewer selected by the Editorial Board does not feel competent for reviewing the manuscript or feels that it is not possible to meet the deadline of the review, he/she should promptly notify the Editorial Board and decline to perform the review.

Confidentiality

Any material under review should be regarded as confidential. The material should not be shared or discussed with anyone outside the review process unless approved by the editor.

Objectivity standards

Reviewing should be objective. Subjective critique of the author is not allowed. Reviewer’s opinion should be stated clearly and supported by arguments.

Confirmation of the resources

The reviewer is responsible for determining the cases when the relevant publications have not been cited in the manuscript or listed in the References section. Furthermore, the reviewer should determine whether all the statements, conclusions, and ideas borrowed from other publications had the corresponding references. If the reviewer detects that the manuscript under review significantly coincides with or is similar to another known publication, he/she should notify the Editorial Board.

Disclosure of information and conflict of interest

Non-disclosable information and ideas must be regarded as confidential and cannot be used for one’s personal advantage. Experts should not review manuscripts if they have any possible conflict of interest due to competitive, collaborative, or other relationships with the manuscript authors, as well as companies or institutions related to the manuscript.

Author responsibilities

Credibility and study standards

If the manuscript is based on an original study, the authors must submit the reliable results of their work and an objective discussion of significance of the study. The manuscript should contain all the key data, accurate description of the study details and references in order to ensure reproducibility of the results. Data falsification or the intentionally invalid statements in the manuscript are regarded as unethical and are inappropriate.

Data availability

The Editorial Board can request the authors to submit raw data in addition to the manuscript. The author must be ready to provide public access to these data, provided that public access to the data violates neither confidentiality of the research participants nor rights of an individual or a company owning these data.

Originality, plagiarism, and citing the sources

Authors must submit only original studies. Authors must properly and accurately acknowledge the work of others. Publications that had significantly contributed to preparing the study or underlied its design should also be acknowledged.

Multiple, duplicate, or competing publications

In general, materials describing the contents of the same study should not be published in more than one journal. Submitting the manuscript to more than one journal is considered unethical and inappropriate. Copyrighted materials that have already been published cannot be submitted to the journal. Furthermore, materials under consideration by the Editorial Board must not be submitted to be published elsewhere. When submitting an article, the author must inform the editor about all the previous presentations of the study that can be regarded as a duplicate publication. The author must notify the editor if the manuscript contains the information published by the author in previous reports or submitted for publication elsewhere. In this case, the new article should contain references to the previously published material.

Authorship criteria

Authorship is limited to the individuals that have made a significant contribution to 1) conception and design of the study; data acquisition and interpretation; 2) preparing the first draft of the article or editing the article to improve its quality; and 3) final approval of the manuscript for publication. Each author must participate in the study to an extent sufficient to take public responsibility for the corresponding part of the content of his/her article. Involvement consisting in funding or selecting material for the article is not sufficient reason for inclusion in the list of authors. General guidance of the research group is not sufficient for including in the list of authors.

All the authors must approve the final manuscript and its submission to the journal for publication.

Conflict of interest

When submitting an article to the journal, all authors must sign the form disclosing financial or any other substantive conflict of interest that can be considered to have influenced the study results or their interpretation. All funding sources of the submitted studies must be specified.

Involvement in the peer review process

After the peer review process, the article can be sent to the author for improvement. Authors should be actively involved in the review process: promptly answer the questions and, if necessary, correct the manuscript in accordance with the reviewer’s comments.

Policy on the Use of Artificial Intelligence of the Media Sphere Publisher

Effective date: 15.12.2025
Last updated: 15.12.2025

The Use of AI Tools in the Publications of Journals of the Media Sphere Publisher

We welcome the responsible and transparent use of artificial intelligence (AI) in scientific medical research and the preparation of manuscripts for scientific periodicals of the Media Sphere Publisher. AI can be a powerful tool to improve the quality and efficiency of your work.

We are committed to maintaining scientific integrity and encourage authors, reviewers, and editors to use AI as an aid, not as a substitute for critical thinking and ethical practices.

AI Use Policy for Authors of Media Sphere Publisher

Key principles for authors when preparing a manuscript using AI

• Copyright: Authors are always solely responsible for the content of their manuscript, including any information generated or processed by AI.
• Transparency: It's important to be sure to specify where and how AI tools have been used (e.g., for data analysis, writing, image creation, etc.).
• Ethics and accuracy: It are important to ensure that the AI does not generate false or incorrect information (hallucinations), it is important to check all facts and references.
• Data privacy: It is not recommended to upload sensitive information, patient data, or any other protected information to public AI tools.

Acceptable uses of AI by authors

·         Language and style improvements: Paraphrasing, readability improvements, grammar and spelling checks (but not body text generation).

• Synthesis and generalization of information: Assistance in reviewing literature, systematizing data.
• Data Analysis: The application of AI algorithms for processing and analyzing large data sets, pattern recognition, if the methodology of such analysis is clearly described.
• Visual creation: Assistance in creating graphs, charts, images (with mandatory indication that AI was used, and confirmation of the originality of the data).

Restrictions and prohibitions for authors

General principles

• AI should not replace professional expertise. The use of any AI tools (including generative language models, image processing models, analytical and optimization algorithms) does not relieve the authors of responsibility for the reliability, scientific validity and ethics of the presented data, methods and conclusions.
• Authors are required to disclose the use of AI in a transparent manner (see the separate section "Disclosure of AI Use"). Failure to comply with disclosure requirements may be considered a violation of publication ethics.

Prohibited Practices

1. Passive or covert generation of scientific content

• You may not present as your own original work any text, data, analysis, or interpretation generated in whole or in part by the AI, without explicitly and in detail disclosing the roles and contributions of the AI.
• It is forbidden to pass off AI as an author. Only human authors can be listed as authors. The AI should not be listed as the co-author, editor, or content owner.

2.      Fabrication and falsification of data through AI

• It is strictly forbidden to use AI to create fictitious clinical data, falsify the results of experiments, simulated patients, or generate "fake" data sets that are passed off as real.
• Any synthetic or modelled data should be explicitly labeled, detailed in the methods, and justified with limitations. If synthetic data is used to train models, this should be disclosed and supported by the availability of source codes/settings for verification.

3.      Manipulating Medical Research Images

• Automatic or manual modification of clinical images (e.g., X-rays, CT scans, MRIs, microscopic images) to distort the clinical picture or results is prohibited unless such alterations are described, justified, and approved by appropriate proprietary and institutional procedures.
• Modified images must be accompanied by a statement about the type of changes (contrast correction, noise reduction, restoration, etc.), tools, parameters, and justification. It is forbidden to remove or add pathological signs using AI.

4.      Violation of the confidentiality and security of personal data

• Do not upload personally identifiable medical data (PII) or other sensitive patient data to cloud or third-party AI services without explicit patient consent and without complying with data protection laws.
• It is forbidden to use AI services with an unknown data retention/use policy to process sensitive information. Authors should choose tools with documented security guarantees and/or apply depersonalization confirmed by the methodology.

5.      Copyright infringement and plagiarism with AI

• You may not use AI to automatically compile copyrighted text, graphics, or images without appropriate rights or citations. Generating a text that is clearly based on someone else's work, without indicating the sources, is considered plagiarism.
• When using AI to retrieve, summarize, or translate someone else's publications, you need to ensure that they are quoted correctly and that fair use rules are followed.

6.      Uncontrolled withdrawal and medical advice

• You may not publish clinical guidelines, diagnostic conclusions, or therapeutic decisions that are fully AI-generated without validation by qualified professionals and without specifying the limitations of the model. Any claims of impact on patient care should be based on clinical evidence and peer review.
• Do not use AI-generated scenarios, recommendations, or predictions to support claims about the benefits or safety of interventions without adequate evidence and verification.

7.      Mass automation of submission and manipulation of the review system

• It is forbidden to use AI for mass automated submission of manuscripts, falsification of reviewers' reviews, creation of fictitious accounts of reviewers, or other actions aimed at circumventing review procedures.
• Authors and reviewers should not use automated means to create false or misleading reviews and comments.

8.      Limitations on methodology and reproducibility

• All AI models used to analyze or generate results should be described in detail: architecture (if relevant), model version, hyperparameters, training data sources, validation procedures, metrics applied, and code/scripts to reproduce the results, or a link to the repository.
• If commercial or closed models have been used, authors should provide access to inputs, seed values, and generation parameters whenever possible to ensure reproducibility. If this is not possible under the license, the restrictions should be described in detail and alternative ways of verifying the results should be given.

9.      Liability and consequences of violations

• Violation of these restrictions may lead to a request for corrections, expression of doubt on publication, retraction of the article, imposition of a ban on the submission of new manuscripts and notification of the author's institution for investigation.
• In cases of data falsification, serious breaches of confidentiality or fraud, the journal reserves the right to transfer materials to the appropriate regulatory authorities.

Disclosure of Authors' Use of AI

• Authors are required to clearly and in detail indicate the use of AI tools at all stages of manuscript preparation, including:
• text generation (including parts of the introduction, discussion, conclusions or annotations);
• preparing or validating data, including statistical analysis, visualization, or data synthesis;
• preparing translations, paraphrasing or editing the text;
• searching for literature or compiling reference lists;
• creating or processing images, graphs, diagrams, audio and video materials.
• The use of AI is indicated in the "Methods" section (for research articles) or in the special section "Statement on the use of AI" (for other types of articles, e.g. reviews, clinical cases).
• For each mentioned use, it is necessary to indicate:
• Name of the AI tool(s) and its version.
• Tool manufacturer (if applicable).
• The specific purpose and use of AI (e.g., "AI tool X was used for stylistic text editing", "Program Y was used for primary categorization of data", "ChatGPT-4 was used to generate introduction suggestions, which were then refined by the authors").
• Any prompts (requests) that have had a significant impact on the generated content (if possible).

Best practices for safe use of AI by creators

• When processing medical data, it is important to give preference to on-premise or certified solutions that provide control over the data.
• Anonymize data to recognized standards and document the anonymization process.
• Save logs of interactions with AI tools, including prompts, generation parameters, and responses received, so that they can be made available at the request of editors or reviewers.
• Carefully check all facts, references, figures, and conclusions generated by AI, as AI models can "hallucinate" (create false but plausible information).

Exceptions: The use of basic grammar and spelling checking tools (such as Microsoft Word spell-check) that are not based on generative AI does not require mandatory disclosure.

AI Use Policy for Reviewers of Media Sphere Publisher

·         This policy establishes recommendations and requirements for the use of AI tools by reviewers who evaluate manuscripts for scientific medical journals of Media Sphere Publisher. The goal is to ensure transparency, protect confidentiality, and maintain scientific integrity when integrating AI into the peer review process.

·         The policy applies to all external and internal reviewers involved in the peer review of manuscripts (scientific articles, reviews, clinical cases, etc.), as well as to editorial staff who use AI in the preparation of recommendations for reviews.

General principles

·         Peer review should remain professional, independent and based on the expert knowledge of the individual. AI tools can only be used as an aid; Final judgments and recommendations must be made by a human reviewer. The reviewer is responsible for the completeness, accuracy and ethics of the review.

Permitted use of AI by reviewers

• Assistance in clarifying the wording, style and structure of the text of the review (formatting, grammar), provided that the content of the assessment and scientific criticism are formulated by the reviewer.
• Quickly search and summarize publicly available information (e.g., extracting key facts from non-specialist sources), as long as it does not compromise the confidentiality of the manuscript.
• Automatic verification of references, citations, and basic formal aspects (e.g., journal compliance), subject to human review.
• Use of specific AI tools designed to assist in methodological evaluation (e.g., statistical verification) only if the tool is certified/clearly described and the results are validated by an independent reviewer's expertise.

Prohibited use of AI by reviewers

• No content of the manuscript (texts, data, figures, tables, unsolicited additional materials) should be entered into public or cloud AI services without the explicit permission of the editorial board and compliance with confidentiality rules.
• Using AI to automatically generate full-fledged reviews, conclusions about scientific merit, or recommendations without significant and critical scrutiny by a human reviewer.
• Using AI tools that save or index uploaded materials and can use them to train models if it violates privacy or copyright.
• Transfer of confidential, unpublished information about the manuscript to third parties through AI services.

Confidentiality and Reviewers' Work with Manuscript Data

• Manuscripts are kept strictly confidential; The reviewer is obliged to comply with the journal's policy regarding the non-distribution of materials.
• Before using any AI service, the reviewer should check the terms of service and data handling policies. If a service stores/uses the uploaded data to train models or has undefined storage practices, such a service cannot be used to process parts of the manuscript.
• If it is necessary to use AI to process the text of the manuscript (for example, summarizing), the reviewer must obtain the consent of the editorial board. Editors may require the use of internal or certified tools with a guarantee of confidentiality.
• Any intermediate files, notes, or conclusions generated by AI and containing manuscript elements must be retained and disposed of in accordance with the journal's data retention policy.

Disclosure of reviewers' use of AI

• If in the process of preparing the review, the reviewer used AI to analyze the manuscript (except for proofreading/grammar), this should be indicated in the accompanying note to the editorial board when sending the review. Provide a name for the tool and briefly describe the nature of the features used (e.g., "method summation," "statistical test validation," "review text reformulation").
• Disclosure is also required if the results of the AI have significantly influenced value judgments or recommendations (e.g., a conclusion about the incorrectness of the analysis proposed by the AI).
• Disclosure does not imply the transfer of the contents of the manuscript to third parties. It is necessary for transparency and so that the editorial board can assess the appropriateness and safety of using the tools used.

Quality and Validation

• It is the responsibility of the reviewer to critically evaluate the conclusions proposed by the AI. The tool is not a substitute for peer review, especially on study design, statistical correctness, interpretation of clinical data, and conclusions with implications for patients.
• When using AI to validate stats or images, the reviewer should document the review method and, if necessary, include explanations in the review.

Conflicts of interest

• The use of AI developed by a commercial organization in which the reviewer has a financial interest or other connections should be disclosed in accordance with the journal's conflicts of interest disclosure policy.

Consequences of non-compliance

• Violation of this policy (e.g., disclosure of a manuscript through an unverified AI service) is considered a serious violation of confidentiality and may result in disciplinary action by the editorial board, including revocation of the right to review and notification of relevant institutions in case of serious violations.

Note to reviewers

AI is a useful tool, but it is not a substitute for professional expertise. Comply with privacy requirements and disclose the use of AI to maintain the trust of authors, reviewers, and readers.

AI Use Policy for Editors of Media Sphere Publisher

·         This AI Policy is designed to ensure the responsible, ethical and transparent use of artificial intelligence (AI) technologies by editors of scientific medical journals of the Media Sphere Publisher. We recognize the potential of AI to improve the efficiency of editorial processes, but emphasize the need to preserve academic integrity, confidentiality, and professional judgment.

·         This Policy applies to all editors (editors-in-chief, deputy editors, members of the editorial boards, executive editors and everyone who participates in editorial decision-making) of scientific medical journals published by Media Sphere Publisher.

1. Basic principles of using AI by editors

• Responsibility: Editors are solely responsible for all editorial decisions made with or without the use of AI. AI is a tool to support, not replace, human judgment.
• Transparency: The use of AI in critical editorial processes should be documented and, if necessary, disclosed.
• Ethics: The use of AI should not violate the ethical standards of scientific publications, including the principles of authorship, plagiarism, confidentiality, conflict of interest, and integrity of research.
• Privacy: Confidential manuscripts or information should never be uploaded to publicly available AI tools that do not guarantee data privacy and do not comply with personal data protection requirements or other applicable data protection regulations.
• Reliability and verification: Any results obtained with the help of AI must be carefully checked and confirmed by an editor. AI can generate inaccurate, biased, or outdated data.
• Non-bias: Editors should be alert to potential bias in AI algorithms and ensure that the use of AI does not discriminate against or treat authors unfairly.

2. Allowed use of AI by editors (with restrictions and mandatory verification)

·         Grammar, spelling, and stylistics checking: Use AI to improve the readability of the manuscript text or accompanying materials.

• Translation: Assistance in translating the text if the manuscript is submitted in a language other than the working language of the journal, or for translating individual phrases.
• Literature search: Using AI tools to identify relevant articles or to organize search results on a specific topic.
• Initial manuscript scanning: Using AI to identify potential problems (e.g., plagiarism, format inconsistencies, obvious gaps in references), but not for a definitive assessment of scientific content or ethical issues.
• Keywords and Annotations: Assist in optimizing keywords or creating draft annotations, which are then edited and approved by the editor.
• Summary: A summary of long texts to better understand their content, but not to assess their scientific value.

3. Prohibiting the use of AI by editors

It is strictly forbidden to use AI for the following purposes:

·         Editorial decision-making: AI cannot make decisions about rejecting, accepting, or sending manuscripts for revision. These decisions should always be left to the human editor.

• Scientific Content Generation: The use of AI to write, paraphrase, or substantially alter scholarly sections of manuscripts, letters to reviewers, commentaries, or any other material that is supposed to be a person's original work.
• Breach of confidentiality: Uploading manuscripts (including unpublished data, results, conclusions) or any other sensitive information to publicly available AI tools without prior confidence in their security and confidentiality.
• Review Score: Using AI to assess the quality or content of reviews written by experts.
• Creating false data or falsification: The use of AI to generate or modify data, images, or any other content that can be used to falsify scientific results.
• Reviewer Identification: Using AI to automatically select or exclude potential reviewers without human oversight and assessing conflicts of interest.

4. Data privacy and security

·         Editors should pay maximum attention to the confidentiality of unpublished manuscripts and related materials.

• Before using any AI tool, make sure it meets the publisher's data protection and privacy standards.
• Don't use AI tools that can save or use the data you've uploaded for your own learning, unless explicitly allowed and guaranteed privacy.
• Manuscripts and personal data of authors and reviewers should never be transferred to third-party AI services unless approved by the publisher.

5. Disclosure of the use of AI

·         In the case of using AI to perform tasks that may affect the content or review process of the manuscript, the editor should be ready to disclose this at the request of the publisher or in case of questions.

6. Training and support

·         The publisher will provide information and training on the responsible use of AI tools, and will update this policy as technology and ethical guidelines evolve.

7. Consequences of non-compliance

·         Violation of this Policy may result in disciplinary action, including, but not limited to, revocation of editorial authority and termination of cooperation with the publisher. In the case of serious violations affecting scientific integrity or confidentiality, additional action may be taken.

Updates to the AI Policy by Media Sphere Publisher

·         This Policy will be regularly reviewed and updated to align with rapidly evolving AI technologies and best practices in scientific publishing.

Procedure for peer reviewing the manuscripts submitted for publication in the journal

All the manuscripts submitted for publication in the journal are peer reviewed (single-blind peer review).

The journal provides peer reviewing of all the submitted materials that are within the remit of the journal for expert evaluation. All peer reviewers are the acknowledged experts who specialize in the field relevant to the reviewed materials and have had publications relevant to the topic of the article being reviewed over the past 3 years. The peer reviews are stored in the publishing and editorial office for 5 years.

Reviewers treat the article as confidential material and strictly follow the author’s right for non-disclosure of the data reported in the manuscript before the article is published. The reviewer may engage additional experts only with permission from the Editorial Board and on a confidential basis.

Reviewers’ comments are sent to the author without disclosing the reviewers’ identity. The Editorial Board makes a final decision whether to publish the manuscript or not after the peer reviews and authors’ answers were received. The Editorial Board sends copies of peer reviews or a substantiated rejection to the authors and also sends copies of the peer reviews to the Ministry of Education and Science of the Russian Federation if a request has been received by the Editorial Board.

In some cases, the Editorial Board can send the article for an additional peer review, including statistical and methodological reviewing.

If the author and the reviewer have unresolvable contradictions regarding the manuscript, the Editorial Board has the right to send the manuscript to another reviewer for review.

The Editorial Board conducts no more than three rounds of review for each manuscript. If the reviewers or the Editorial Board have significant comments after three times revision of the manuscript, the manuscript is rejected. In this case, the authors are notified accordingly.

The Editorial Board constantly monitors the quality of peer review using the Russian version of the Review Quality Instrument questionnaire (Version 3.2), van Rooyen S., Black N., Godlee F. J Clin Epidemiol 1999;52:625-9.

The English version of the Review Quality Instrument questionnaire is available here (download – PDF file).

The Editorial Board expects that the review process will help to:

• prevent publishing poor-quality articles and reject the studies that have not been designed and conducted properly;
• make sure that the data reported in the article are accurate, sufficient, and, where applicable, are presented in compliance with the current international standards CONSORT, STROBE, PRISMA, CARE, STARD (http://www.equator-network.org);
• check whether the previous key studies in the corresponding field of science have been cited;
• make sure that the authors have properly interpreted the data and drawn substantiated conclusions;
and, hence:
• make a decision whether to publish an article or not and offer suggestions to the authors on how to improve the article (where necessary).