Editorial Policies
- Aims and Scope
- Sections
- Peer Review Process
- Publication Frequency
- Open Access Policy
- Archiving
- Author Self-Archiving
- Indexation
- Publishing Ethics
- Article processing charges
- Advertising policy
- Guidelines on using generative AI in manuscript preparation
- EQUATOR Network Reporting Guidelines
- Online First publications
- Editorial process
Aims and Scope
Consortium PSYCHIATRICUM is an international peer-reviewed medical science journal specializing in psychiatry.
Consortium PSYCHIATRICUM addresses its articles to a wide range of professionals in the field of mental health and related disciplines, including opinion leaders of the international scientific community, heads of professional psychiatric associations, scientists, researchers, teachers, doctoral students, graduate students, university students, practicing specialists.
The journal aims to create an open, international platform for covering the most relevant research in the field of mental health.
Objectives:
1. To publish high-quality and reliable research results using a rigorous selection of articles based on the criteria of novelty and relevance of the topic, originality, and accuracy of the data presented.
2. To implement up-to-date editorial standards, including Online First publication, open access to full-text versions of articles, and application of the EQUATOR Network publication guidelines.
3. To promote key research through the media and social networks, ensuring the dissemination of scientific achievements.
4. To comply with international ethical standards (COPE) at all stages of the publication process.
Mission:
Information
Consortium PSYCHIATRICUM is a global mental health knowledge ecosystem: we bring together scientists of various specialties, regions, and cultures to find answers to the most difficult mysteries of the human psyche.
Education
Consortium PSYCHIATRICUM is a navigator in the world of science: we attract leading researchers, use the state-of-the-art methods for reporting scientific results, and adhere to high publication standards.
Collaboration
Consortium PSYCHIATRICUM brings science to the world: we provide open access to scientific data, make the difficult language of science accessible, communicate findings to a wider audience, and give researchers the opportunity to make a name for themselves.
Sections
RESEARCH
REVIEW
CASE REPORT
PROTOCOL
HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE
SPECIAL ARTICLE
POLICY STATEMENT
OPINION
COMMENTARY
SPECIAL VIEW
DISCUSSION
INFORMATION
EDITORIAL
CONFERENCE REPORT
INTERVIEW
LETTER TO THE EDITOR
OBITUARY
Peer Review Process
1. General Information
1.1. All manuscripts submitted to the Consortium PSYCHIATRICUM journal undergo a mandatory double-blind peer review process. This ensures anonymity for both authors and reviewers. Each manuscript is assessed by at least one specialist in a medical field relevant to the manuscript's topic.
1.2. For article types such as interviews, commentaries, and letters to the editor, the publication decision rests with the Editorial Board.
1.3. Peer review is conducted on a voluntary basis.
2. Reviewer Selection
2.2. Reviewers are selected from the Editorial Board members and external experts, leading Russian and international specialists in the relevant medical field.
2.3. A reviewer must possess the requisite scientific qualifications, demonstrated by an academic degree not lower than Ph.D. and relevant publications within the last three years. The reviewer must be free from any scientific, financial, or other conflicts of interest with the authors.
2.4. Manuscripts authored by the Editor-in-Chief, Deputy Editor-in-Chief, scientific editors, or members of the Editorial Board are reviewed exclusively by external reviewers. The selection of reviewers in such cases is performed by an editor who is not involved in the conflict of interest.
2.5. Authors may suggest potential reviewers (typically no more than two) or indicate reviewers who should be excluded from the process. The editorial team will consider these requests, but the final selection remains the prerogative of the Deputy Editor-in-Chief.
3. Reviewer Responsibilities
3.1. Evaluate the intellectual content of the manuscript impartially and objectively, without regard to the authors' race, gender, sexual orientation, religion, origin, citizenship, or political preferences.
3.2. Promptly notify the journal if they feel unqualified to review the manuscript or are unable to meet the review deadline.
3.3. Treat the received manuscript as a strictly confidential document. They must not disclose its content or discuss it with third parties without explicit permission from the editors. Unpublished data must not be used for personal advantage without the author's written consent. All correspondence with the editorial office is confidential.
3.4. Provide clear, polite, constructive, and substantive feedback. Critique should be directed at the work's content, not the author personally.
3.5. Decline to review a manuscript in case of any conflict of interest (scientific, financial, or personal) that could bias their perception or interpretation of the work.
3.6. Identify significant publications on the manuscript's topic that are missing from the bibliography, as well as verify the presence of proper bibliographic citations for all previously published statements, observations, and conclusions used in the work. Upon detecting substantial similarity or textual overlap between the manuscript under review and any other published materials, the reviewer must promptly inform the editorial board of such findings.
4. Review Procedure
4.2. The standard review period is two weeks, which may be extended upon the reviewer's request.
4.3. The reviewer must assess the manuscript based on the following criteria: relevance, topicality, novelty, originality, practical significance, scientific value, adherence to publishing ethics, and clarity of presentation.
4.4. The reviewer completes the review form and may provide specific comments directly in the manuscript text using the "Track Changes" feature.
4.5. Based on the assessment, the reviewer provides one of the following recommendations:
- Accept without changes;
- Accept after minor revisions (small, specific corrections required);
- Accept after major revisions (significant amendments to text required);
- Reject (explaining the reason for the editors).
5. Manuscript Revision
5.2. If a reviewer or the scientific editor recommends rejection, the manuscript is forwarded to the Editorial Board for a final decision.
5.3. If revision is required, the authors receive the reviewers' and scientific editor's comments. Authors must revise the manuscript using the "Track Changes" feature or provide a reasoned rebuttal for any comment not addressed. A point-by-point response to all reviewers' comments must be provided in a separate document.
5.4. The revised manuscript is sent back to the reviewer for re-evaluation. This process is repeated until the reviewer recommends acceptance or the manuscript is rejected.
6. Dispute Resolution
6.2. The final decision is made by the Editorial Board, considering the recommendations of the reviewers and the scientific editor. The Editor-in-Chief holds the ultimate decision-making authority in conflict situations.
7. Archiving of Reviews
7.2. Full texts of reviews for all published articles are uploaded to the scientific electronic library eLIBRARY.RU together with the article materials. These reviews are not publicly accessible, and reviewers' personal data remain confidential.
Publication Frequency
The journal publish regular issues quarterly, 4 issues per year.
Open Access Policy
Consortium PSYCHIATRICUM is an open access journal. All articles are made freely available to readers immediately upon publication.
Our open access policy follows the Budapest Open Access Initiative (BOAI) definition. It means that articles are freely available 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, see the full BOAI statement.
This journal's articles are licensed under Creative Commons NonCommercial-NoDerivates 4.0 International (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0) which allows users to read, copy, distribute and make derivative works for non-commercial purposes from the material, as long as the author of the original work is cited properly.
Archiving
The journal uses the PKP Preservation Network (PKP PN) to digitally preserve all the published articles. The PKP PN is a part of LOCKSS (Lots of Copies Keep Stuff Safe) program offers decentralized and distributed preservation, seamless perpetual access, and preservation of the authentic original version of the content.
Also, the journal makes full-text archives on the Russian Science Electronic Library (eLibrary.ru) platform.
Indexation
The journal is indexed in:
- Scopus
- PubMed
- PsycInfo
- Russian Science Citation Index (RSCI)
- Russian Science Electronic Library (eLibrary.ru)
- DOAJ SEAL
- Google Scholar
- Dimensions
- Crossref
- Ulrich's Periodicals Directory
Publishing Ethics
1. Introduction
1.1. The Editorial Board of Consortium PSYCHIATRICUM regards adherence to international standards of publication ethics as the cornerstone of trust in scientific knowledge. Our editorial policy is based on the principles of integrity, transparency, and respect for all participants in the scientific process. In its activities, the Editorial Board is guided by the recommendations of leading international organizations: the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE), and the World Association of Medical Editors (WAME). Although the journal is not a formal member of these organizations, we fully endorse and apply the ethical norms and standards for scientific publications they have developed.The ethical principles mandatory for authors, reviewers, and the Editorial Board are detailed in this section and form an integral part of the peer review and publication process for every manuscript.
1.2. The Editorial Board of Consortium PSYCHIATRICUM builds professional communication on a foundation of mutual respect. We expect our staff, authors, reviewers, and readers to adhere to the norms of ethical professional communication. In cases of aggression, harassment, bullying, or blackmail directed at editorial staff, the Editorial Board reserves the right to terminate communication.
2. Manuscript Requirements
2.1. Authors must submit a manuscript containing reliable results and their objective assessment. The presentation of data and methodology must be sufficiently detailed to allow for verification and replication of the results. All statements and conclusions must be supported by data or references to authoritative sources.2.2. When preparing literature reviews, authors are obliged to employ a systematic approach to the selection and analysis of sources and to ensure a balanced interpretation of the data presented therein.
3. Data Availability and Retention
3.1. Authors are obliged to provide raw data and protocols upon the Editorial Board's request, ensuring their preservation for a reasonable period after publication, in accordance with the ALPSP-STM Statement on Data and Databases.3.2. Data fabrication and falsification are considered unacceptable violations of scientific ethics.
4. Plagiarism
4.1. Consortium PSYCHIATRICUM prohibits plagiarism in all its forms. This encompasses not only verbatim text copying but also the misappropriation of scientific ideas, hypotheses, methodologies, or results without appropriate credit.4.2. Authors warrant that the submitted manuscript is an original work that has not been published previously and is not under consideration by another publication.
4.3. Any verbatim or near-verbatim borrowing of text, data, graphical materials, or ideas without proper citation of the original source is considered plagiarism. All forms of plagiarism are deemed a violation of publication ethics and constitute grounds for manuscript rejection.
4.4. Any borrowing from the authors' own previous works must be explicitly indicated and referenced to avoid self-plagiarism.
4.5. The publication of materials containing plagiarism is not permitted. If unauthorized borrowing or a low level of text originality is identified, the Editorial Board reserves the right to reject the manuscript or request its revision.
4.6. The Editorial Board checks the originality of all submitted manuscripts using the "Antiplagiat" system. Monitoring for plagiarism is also conducted during the peer review stage and after publication (based on reader appeals). If plagiarism is confirmed, the Editorial Board acts in accordance with the guidelines of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). An article may be retracted at any time after publication.
5. Duplicate Submissions
5.1. Authors must not submit a manuscript to more than one journal concurrently. This practice is strictly prohibited.5.2. Publication of a manuscript presenting the results of a single study in multiple journals as an original work is not permitted.
5.3. Republication of certain types of articles (e.g., clinical guidelines, translated articles) in more than one journal may be considered ethical under specific conditions. Detailed criteria are outlined in the "Preprints and Reprints" section.
6. Acknowledgement of Sources
6.1. Authors are obliged to provide references to all publications that have significantly influenced the submitted manuscript.6.2. The use of information obtained from private sources (personal correspondence, conversations, discussions) is permitted only with explicit written permission.
6.3. It is prohibited to use confidential information (e.g., obtained during the peer review of manuscripts or grant application evaluations) without the direct written consent of the relevant authors or rights holders.
6.4. Editors and reviewers should only suggest references that improve the manuscript. They must not suggest references just to promote their own work, their colleagues' work, or journals they are connected to.
7. Article Correction and Retraction Policy
Consortium PSYCHIATRICUM maintains rigorous quality standards and implements thorough multi-stage evaluation of all manuscripts prior to publication. However, in rare instances following publication, corrections to content may be required or, as an ultimate measure, article retraction may be necessary.7.1. Types of Corrections
The following modifications may be applied to published articles:
- Addendum:new material expanding the original article's content (requires peer review).
- Erratum: correction of errors introduced during the editorial/publication process.
- Corrigendum:correction of author errors identified after publication.
7.2.1. Decisions regarding addendum publication are made by the Editorial Board based on recommendations from scientific editors or author requests.
7.2.2. Erratum is issued for errors, typically of a typographical or formatting nature, that were introduced by the journal during production and do not affect the readability, reproducibility, or core findings of the research.
7.2.3. For corrigendum publication, authors must submit a formal request detailing the error and proposed changes. The editorial team evaluates the impact of corrections on the article's scientific validity before approving their publication.
7.3. Article Retraction Guidelines7.3.1. The journal may retract publications to alert readers to significant flaws or errors in published articles. Such errors may result from genuine oversight or deliberate author misconduct.
7.3.2. A manuscript may be retracted for the following reasons:
- plagiarism;
- data falsification (including image manipulation and result misrepresentation);
- substantial errors in methodology, calculations, or data interpretation undermining core conclusions;
- infringement of intellectual property rights, including copyright;
- duplicate publication without proper attribution, notification, or permissions;
- undisclosed use of AI tools in manuscript preparation;
- major ethical violations (including undisclosed conflicts of interest affecting work evaluation).
7.3.3. Retraction decisions may be initiated through author request (with justification) or through editorial investigation. Authors are formally notified of retractions with stated reasons and effective dates.
7.3.4. The journal follows Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) guidelines (https://publicationethics.org/) and recommendations from the Association of Science Editors and Publishers (ASEP) Ethics Council (https://rasep.ru/sovet-po-etike/pravilo-otzyva-retragirovaniya-stati-ot-publikatsii) in retraction cases.
7.3.5. Retracted articles remain accessible in their original issue with prominent "RETRACTED" watermarks on the text and table of contents. Retraction notices are published in the website news section. The editorial office notifies all indexing databases and repositories where the journal is indexed about retracted publications.
7.4. Changes TrackingConsortium PSYCHIATRICUM supports CrossMark technology (Crossref) to track all post-publication modifications including corrections, addenda, updates, and retractions.
To verify any article's current status, click the CrossMark logo appearing on PDF versions.
8. Appeals and Complaints
The Editorial Board accepts and considers appeals and complaints from authors, reviewers, and readers regarding violations of editorial ethics, inappropriate borrowing, or non-compliance with publication standards.
8.1. Grounds for Appeal or ComplaintAppeals or complaints may be submitted in the following circumstances:
- Editorial decisions (challenging editorial decisions, such as manuscript rejection).
- Procedural delays (significant delays during peer review or scientific editing stages).
- Ethical concerns (including, but not limited to, issues of authorship, peer review integrity, or competing interests).
All appeals and complaints should be submitted to the official editorial email: editor@consortium-psy.com.
8.3. Review Process8.3.1. Editorial Decisions
The Editorial Board conducts a reassessment of the manuscript, examining the author's arguments, reviewer feedback, and scientific editor's comments.
The review may result in one of the following outcomes:
- uphold the original decision;
- initiate additional independent peer review;
- reverse the decision in the author's favor.
The appellant receives a written response with detailed explanations. Decisions on appeals are final and not subject to further review.
8.3.2. Procedural Delays
The situation is investigated by Deputy Editors-in-Chief.
The complainant receives a comprehensive explanation, and if violations are confirmed, the editorial office implements measures to improve workflow procedures.
8.3.3. Ethical Concerns
Investigations are conducted according to Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) guidelines.
In complex cases, the editorial office may consult with the publisher or independent experts.
8.4. Final ProvisionsThe editorial office is committed to reviewing all submissions with maximum objectivity and impartiality. However, abuse of the appeals process is not permitted: repeated complaints on the same matter that do not present new substantial evidence will not be reconsidered.
9. Ethical Standards for Research Involving Human and Animal Subjects
9.1. Consortium PSYCHIATRICUM will only consider manuscripts reporting work that complies with international bioethical standards, the principles of Good Clinical Practice (GCP), and all applicable legislative and regulatory requirements at all stages of the research.9.2. In the "Methods" section, authors must disclose all potential risks to research participants associated with the use of pharmaceutical drugs, medical interventions, diagnostic procedures, and other actions that could affect their health and well-being.
9.3. Authors must provide information on the approval of the study by an ethics committee, indicating its full name, the protocol registration number, and the date of the meeting. Upon the Editorial Board's request, certified copies of the relevant documents must be provided.
9.4. For research involving human participants, voluntary informed consent must be obtained from all participants. In the case of publishing identifiable materials (photographs, video recordings, personal data), additional direct written permission from the patient is required.
9.5. Authors bear full responsibility for the confidentiality of personal data of research participants. Published materials must completely exclude any information that could allow the identification of patients or other participants in the study.
10. Authorship
10.1. Definition of Authorship10.1.1. In accordance with ICMJE recommendations, authorship credit should be based on the following four criteria:
• Substantial contributions to the conception or design of the work; or the acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data for the work; AND
• Drafting the work or revising it critically for important intellectual content; AND
• Final approval of the version to be published; AND
• Agreement to be accountable for all aspects of the work in ensuring that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work are appropriately investigated and resolved.
10.1.2. Changes to the list of authors (addition/removal or change in the order of authorship) after the manuscript has been accepted for publication are not permitted.
10.1.3. Acquisition of funding, provision of resources, technical support, scientific supervision, or general leadership of the research group alone does not constitute grounds for authorship.
10.1.4. Contributors who do not meet all four criteria for authorship but have provided substantial assistance may be acknowledged in the "Acknowledgements" section, with their consent and a description of their specific contribution.
10.1.5. All individuals and organizations listed in the "Acknowledgements" section must provide the authors with written consent for the mention, as their names become associated with the research and its findings. While this consent does not need to be submitted to the Editorial Board with the manuscript, authors must be prepared to provide it upon request.
10.2. Corresponding Author
One author must assume responsibility for correspondence with the Editorial Board. Their duties include:
• Confirming that the list of authors accurately reflects their actual contribution to the research;
• Obtaining approval of the final version of the manuscript from all co-authors prior to publication;
• Keeping the team informed about the content of correspondence with the Editorial Board and reviewers.
10.3. Affiliations
The primary affiliation listed should be the institution where the majority of the research was conducted. Authors may optionally list other organizations with which they are professionally affiliated. Changes to affiliations are not permitted after the article is published.
10.4. Changes in Authorship
10.4.1. Before submitting a manuscript to the journal, authors must finalize the composition of the author team, appoint a corresponding author, and determine the order of authors.
10.4.2. Changes to the list of authors during the review stage are permitted only in exceptional cases and require mandatory justification and approval by a Deputy Editor-in-Chief.
10.4.3. After a manuscript is accepted for publication, changes to the list of authors are not permitted. Authors' names are published according to the data provided in the final version of the manuscript.
10.5. Author Name Change
Authors who have changed their personal data (surname or given name) have the right to request a correction in previously published articles. The Editorial Board offers two options for implementing changes:
• Without formal notification – edits are made directly to the electronic versions of the article (PDF and HTML);
• With formal notification – a Corrigendum is published explaining the changes made.
10.6. Authors Unable to Participate in the Editorial Process
In the event of the death or loss of legal capacity of a co-author during the preparation, submission, or review of a manuscript, the decision to retain their name in the list of authors is made by the remaining members of the team. This requires the written consent of a legal representative (e.g., a next of kin).
10.7. Resolution of Authorship Disputes
10.7.1. The journal does not act as an arbiter in conflicts between authors during the review stage or after publication of an article. Authors are strongly encouraged to resolve such situations independently.
10.7.2. If authors are unable to reach an agreement, the journal reserves the right to:
• Withdraw the manuscript from the editorial process (for unpublished materials);
• Refer the matter to the authors' institutions for resolution (for published articles).
10.7.3. The journal's final decision will be based on the findings and recommendations of the institutions. Disputed issues are considered on a case-by-case basis, taking into account all the circumstances of the specific case.
11. Responsibilities of the Editorial Process Participants
11.1. Responsibilities of the Editorial Board
11.1.1. The Editor-in-Chief and the Editorial Board are responsible for:
• Formulating and implementing the journal's publication policy in accordance with international ethical standards (COPE, ICMJE, WAME);
• Making the final decision on the publication or rejection of manuscripts based on their scientific significance, originality, and relevance to the journal's scope;
• Ensuring the impartiality and objectivity of the editorial process, excluding influence from the authors' race, ethnicity, gender, religious beliefs, citizenship, or political preferences;
• Considering author appeals and resolving disputes related to the peer review and acceptance of manuscripts;
• Organizing a timely peer review process, selecting competent reviewers, and monitoring the deadlines for providing reviews;
• Identifying conflicts of interest and taking measures to eliminate them at all stages of the editorial process;
• Making decisions on the retraction of published articles in cases of gross violations of publication ethics.
11.1.2. The Editors (Scientific Editors, Copy Editors) are responsible for:
• Strictly maintaining confidentiality regarding the content of the manuscript, information about the authors, and reviewers at all stages of work;
• Objectively analyzing reviews and preparing reasoned conclusions for authors and the Editorial Board;
• Interacting with authors based on the principles of professionalism, respect, and professional ethics;
• Promptly informing the Editor-in-Chief of any potential conflicts of interest related to the manuscript;
• Ensuring the high scientific and stylistic quality of published materials within their competence.
11.2. Responsibilities of the Reviewer
Peer review is a key stage of the editorial process, ensuring the high quality, accuracy, and clarity of published materials. Reviewers assist the Editorial Board in making an informed decision on publication and help authors improve their articles by incorporating professional feedback.
Reviewers serve as independent experts: their constructive assessment helps maintain the journal's scientific standards.
For more details on the peer review procedure and reviewer responsibilities, please see the "Peer Review" section.
11.3. Responsibilities of the Authors
Authors bear full responsibility for the content of the manuscript and undertake to adhere to the following principles.
11.3.1. Compliance with Guidelines and Deadlines
Authors must strictly adhere to all stipulated requirements: manuscript formatting rules, instructions contained in editorial letters (including established deadlines), and the procedure for addressing comments from reviewers and scientific editors. Failure to meet these requirements is considered a violation of publication ethics and leads to editorial sanctions.
11.3.2. Scientific Integrity and Reliability
Authors guarantee:
• The reliability of the presented results and the conformity of the research methodology to accepted standards;
• Provision of raw data to the Editorial Board upon a reasoned request;
• The originality of the work, the absence of plagiarism in any form, and the proper formatting of all cited sources.
11.3.3. Publication Ethics
• Authors confirm that the manuscript is not under consideration by other publications and has not been published previously.
• The list of authors includes all persons who made a significant contribution to the research and complies with international authorship criteria.
• Authors undertake to disclose all potential conflicts of interest that could affect the interpretation of the results, indicate sources of funding, and report the use of artificial intelligence technologies in the preparation of the work.
11.3.4. Interaction with the Editorial Board
• Authors undertake to diligently and within the established deadlines make revisions to the manuscript based on the reviewers' comments.
• Authors are obliged to maintain the confidentiality of information received during the editorial process (e.g., from reviewers) and not to use it for other purposes without official permission.
11.4. Responsibilities of the Publisher
11.4.1. The Publisher is obliged to:
• Ensure adherence to ethical norms by the editors, reviewers, and authors of Consortium PSYCHIATRICUM in accordance with established requirements;
• Exclude the influence of commercial interests (including revenue from advertising or reprints) on editorial decisions.
11.4.2. The Publisher is obliged to assist the editors of Consortium PSYCHIATRICUM in handling ethical complaints regarding published materials and to facilitate their interaction with other journals and publishers to effectively fulfill editorial duties.
11.4.3. The Publisher is obliged to promote adherence to proper research practice and the implementation of industry standards aimed at improving ethical norms, as well as procedures for retracting and correcting publications.
11.4.4. The Publisher is obliged to ensure the provision of specialized legal support (including consultation and preparation of opinions) in cases requiring legal assistance.
The section is prepared according to the files of Elsevier publisher and files from Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).
Article processing charges
There are no article processing charges (APCs) for authors.
All services, including scientific editing, copyediting anf proofreading, translation, NLM reference formatting, typesetting, promotion, and a printed author copy of the journal, are provided free of charge.
Advertising policy
1. Guiding Principles
Consortium PSYCHIATRICUM's advertising policy follows recommendations from the World Association of Medical Editors (WAME) and complies with the Russian Federation's Federal Law "On Advertising." While the journal generates revenue from advertising, this does not influence editorial decisions. Advertisers and sponsors have no input regarding publication content, peer review processes, or editorial decisions.2. Advertisement Approval Process
All proposed advertisements undergo mandatory review by the Editorial Board. The Board reserves the right to:- reject advertisements that conflict with the journal's mission, editorial policy, or publisher standards;
- suspend collaboration with advertisers who violate contractual agreements;
- request documentation confirming rights to all submitted content;
- decline any advertisement without providing justification.
3. Print Advertisement Placement
Print advertisements may appear on inside covers or internal pages, provided they:- maintain clear visual distinction from scholarly content;
- avoid placement prior or next to thematically related scientific articles;
- appear only between articles (no within-article placements permitted).
4. Technical Specifications
Advertisement materials must comply with the journal's printing standards regarding:- page dimensions and formatting requirements;
- image resolution and color reproduction quality.
5. Content Requirements
All advertisements must:- be clearly identified as "Advertisement";
- contain accurate and verifiable information;
- clearly identify both advertiser and product/service;
- avoid factual distortions, exaggerated claims, or sensational language;
- refrain from containing offensive or inappropriate content;
- exclude references to personal, racial, ethnic, sexual, or religious matters.
6. Healthcare Product Regulations
Advertisements for medications, medical devices, and healthcare services must comply with Russian Federation regulations, including:- brand names accompanied by generic names;
- active ingredient quantities with recommended dosages;
- clear "For healthcare professionals" designation for prescription products;
- required disclaimer: "Contraindications exist. Consult a specialist.";
- for unregistered health products: "This information has not been reviewed or approved by the Russian Ministry of Health. This product is not intended to diagnose, treat, cure, or prevent any disease."
7. Prohibited Categories
The journal does not accept advertisements for:- alcohol and tobacco products;
- weapons and explosives;
- gambling services;
- pornographic content;
- political or religious organizations;
- products with unproven efficacy;
- child-targeted products.
8. Restricted Digital Formats
The publisher prohibits:- pop-up and floating advertisements;
- ads collecting personal data without explicit consent;
- formats that obstruct content accessibility;
- automatic redirects to external websites.
9. Liability
- advertisers assume full responsibility for content accuracy and legal compliance;
- advertisement placement does not imply journal endorsement;
- legal disputes are governed by Russian law;
- advertisers indemnify the publisher against third-party claims;
- use of publisher trademarks requires written authorization;
- the publisher is not liable for incidental damages from display errors.
10. Third-Party Advertising
The publisher collaborates with advertising networks that may use cookies to display targeted advertisements based on non-personal website visit information.
11. Policy Updates
This policy remains subject to periodic revision. For advertising inquiries, please contact: marketing@consortium-psy.comGuidelines on using generative AI in manuscript preparation
The editorial office of the Consortium PSYCHIATRICUM journal has adopted these guidelines in response to the increasing use of artificial intelligence in scientific research. These guidelines may be revised and updated in accordance with technological developments and evolving standards of research ethics.
1. Introduction
Generative Artificial Intelligence (AI) refers to a set of technology solutions designed to simulate human cognitive functions. This set includes information and communication infrastructure, software (including the one based on machine learning), as well as processes and services for data processing and problem solving. Core AI technologies encompass computer vision, natural language processing, speech recognition and synthesis, and intelligent decision support systems.
2. Guidelines for Authors on the Use of Artificial Intelligence
2.1. Authors may:
2.1.1. Use AI tools in the preparation of manuscripts submitted to Consortium PSYCHIATRICUM. Authors remain fully responsible for the content of their manuscripts, including any parts generated or modified with the assistance of AI.
2.1.2. Use AI for translation, language editing, proofreading, formatting, or refinement of the text, provided that the output is subsequently reviewed and critically evaluated by the authors.
2.1.3. Use AI to create or modify images, graphs, and illustrations if such creation or modification is part of the study plan. In this case, the use of AI must be explicitly described in the Methods section.
2.2. Authors may not:
2.2.1. List AI tools as an author or co-author of a manuscript, or as the primary source of data.
2.2.2. Delegate to AI the full or partial creation of the scientific content of a manuscript (including the formulation of hypotheses, interpretation of research findings, drafting of conclusions, or preparation of literature reviews) without subsequent human oversight and critical assessment.
2.2.3. Use AI to create or modify images, graphs, and illustrations, except as permitted in Section 2.1.3.
2.3. Authors must:
2.3.1. Disclose the name, version, and purpose of AI use in a dedicated section of the manuscript entitled Generative AI Use Statement, if AI has been employed for translation, language editing, proofreading, formatting, or refinement of the text. In all such cases, the output must be subsequently reviewed and critically evaluated by the authors.
2.3.2. Disclose the name, version, purpose of AI use, and the specific prompt in both the Methods section and the Generative AI Use Statement of the manuscript, if AI has been employed to create or modify images, graphs, or illustrations that form part of the study design or methodology. Example: This proposal/research was fully conceptualized and scientifically developed by [Author Name]. Generative AI [AI Name] was used only for language editing, formatting assistance, and refinement of non-scientific sections. No part of the research idea, research question, or research methodology was generated or influenced by AI tools.
3. Guidelines for Reviewers on the Use of Artificial Intelligence
3.1. Reviewers may use AI tools solely to improve the clarity of their review text. Reviewers remain fully responsible for the accuracy, substance, and constructiveness of their reports.
3.2. Reviewers may not upload the manuscript under review, or any part thereof, into publicly accessible AI tools (e.g., ChatGPT, DeepSeek), as doing so violates confidentiality and copyright.
3.3. Reviewers who violate the provisions of Section 3.2 will be disqualified from further collaboration with the journal, and their report will be excluded from the peer review process.
4. Guidelines for Editors on the Use of Artificial Intelligence
4.1. Editors may:
4.1.1. Use internally developed AI tools to generate supplementary content (e.g., short summaries, social media posts, podcasts).
4.1.2. Reject a manuscript at any stage of the publication process if undeclared or unethical use of AI is identified, including but not limited to data fabrication, plagiarism, inappropriate text reuse, or the generation of misleading or unsubstantiated content.
4.2. Editors may not use publicly available AI tools to support editorial decision-making, assess the scientific merit of a manuscript, generate accept/reject recommendations, or draft decision letters to authors. Critical judgment and original editorial assessment cannot be delegated to AI.
EQUATOR Network Reporting Guidelines
The editorial board of Consortium PSYCHIATRICUM strongly recommends that authors use the EQUATOR Network publication guidelines when preparing manuscripts. A unified standard for reporting research ensures the accuracy, completeness, and transparency of articles. As a result, the scientific reliability and value of published materials are significantly enhanced.
1. Manuscripts describing original research (including study protocols and systematic reviews) must be submitted to the editorial office in strict accordance with the structure of the checklist from one of the reporting guidelines available in the EQUATOR Network For most studies, one of the following guidelines will be appropriate:
- Observational studies (STROBE)
- Randomized trials (CONSORT)
- Study protocols (SPIRIT)
- Narrative literature reviews (check list)
- Genetic associations (STREGA)
- Survey studies (CROSS)
- Qualitative researches (SRQR)
- Systematic reviews (PRISMA)
- Scoping reviews (PRISMA-ScR)
- Diagnostic/prognostic studies (STARD)
- Prediction models (TRIPOD-AI)
- Case reports (CARE)
- Test adaptation (TARES)
2. The list above is not exhaustive. If no listed guideline is appropriate for your research, you must identify a suitable alternative using the search function of the EQUATOR Network library (searchable by study type, clinical area, manuscript section, or keywords).
3. Authors who need help selecting an appropriate guideline may contact the editorial office at editor@consortium-psy.com for guidance.
4. The editorial team will check for guideline adherence during initial manuscript screening. If a manuscript is submitted using an incorrect or inappropriate guideline, the authors will be requested to revise and resubmit it using the correct checklist.
5. For any checklist item that is not applicable to the study, authors must mark it as "Not applicable." The item header must be retained in the text. All non-applicable items will be removed by the editorial staff during the final typesetting stage prior to publication.
For detailed instructions on how to select and use these guidelines, please read our guide.
Online First publications
The Online First section features articles that have been approved for publication by the editorial board following peer review and scientific editing. These materials have completed full pre-publication preparation, including copyediting, translation, proofreading by a native speaker, reference list verification, and final approval of the text and layout by the authors. These articles will be included in one of the journal's forthcoming issues.
Online First articles are published under open access license, which permits users to read, download and share them without restriction. These materials can be cited the same way as publications from the journal's regular issues. A complete citation record is provided at the end of each article's PDF file.
Since the Online First version constitutes the final version of the article, no further revisions can be made to it. Any necessary changes will be published separately as “addendum” or correction (“erratum”/“corrigendum”) in a subsequent journal issue
Editorial process
Manuscripts submitted to the editorial office undergo several stages of review:
Check the video on the editorial process: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-qzBprwRVnk
1. Technical Check
Upon submission, each manuscript undergoes an initial technical assessment to ensure it meets the journal's formal requirements:
- Scope: The work must fall within the field of psychiatry and related disciplines.
- Originality: The text is screened using the "Antiplagiat" system to identify plagiarism.
- Structure: The manuscript must adhere to the structure outlined in the relevant EQUATOR Network guideline for the declared study type.
The technical check is completed within 3 business days.
Submissions that do not fulfill all requirements will be either returned to the authors for amendment or declined.
Articles that fulfill all formal requirements are forwarded to the Editorial Board for consideration.
2. Editorial Board Assessment
During the initial editorial assessment, the Scientific Editor evaluates the manuscript's scientific novelty, methodological validity, and adherence to ethical standards. Based on this assessment, the manuscript may be returned to the authors for amendment, accepted for further processing (sent for peer review and scientific editing), or declined.
3. Peer Review and Scientific Editing
3.1. Peer review is a crucial component of the editorial process at Consortium PSYCHIATRICUM. The journal's peer review policies and procedures are outlined in a dedicated section.
3.2. The Reviewer evaluates the scientific quality and rigor of the manuscript, while the Scientific Editor assists the authors in improving its structure, clarifying the objectives, methods, and results, and strengthening the logical flow. A Statistical Editor verifies the accuracy of calculations and the validity of the chosen analytical methods in studies.
3.3. The editorial office sends the Reviewer's and Scientific Editor's comments (and, if applicable, the Statistical Editor's comments) to the author. The author revises the manuscript, providing a response to every remark and incorporating the necessary edits into the text. Authors are given 2 weeks to submit revisions; this period may be extended upon request.
3.4. The Scientific Editor and the Reviewer examine the revised manuscript and may ask the authors for clarifications if needed. This constitutes one round of review; the manuscript may undergo up to four such rounds. After each round, the reviewer and Scientific Editor make one of the following decisions: request further revisions or recommend the article for publication.
4. Final Editorial Board Decision
Manuscripts that have received positive recommendations from the Reviewer and Scientific Editor are submitted to the Editorial Board for final consideration. The Board members conduct a final assessment and make the ultimate decision to accept the manuscript for publication or to request additional clarifications from the authors.
5. Appeals
5.1. Authors have the right to appeal a decision made by a Reviewer and/or the Scientific Editor by submitting a formal appeal to the editorial office (see Appeals and Complaints).
5.2. If the authors refuse to revise the manuscript based on the comments from the Reviewer and/or Scientific Editor, they must notify the editorial office in writing of their decision and provide a justification.
6. Withdrawal of Manuscripts
6.1. If the authors do not return the revised version of the manuscript within 3 months from the date the review and/or editorial comments were sent, the editorial office will withdraw it from consideration (even in the absence of a formal withdrawal notice from the authors). In such cases, the authors will be notified accordingly that the manuscript has been withdrawn due to the expiration of the revision period.
6.2. Failure to adequately address the essential concerns of the Reviewers and/or Scientific Editor will result in the manuscript's withdrawal from consideration.
7. Preparing for Publication
7.1. Accepted manuscripts undergo copyediting. At this stage, authors may be required to provide necessary clarifications.
7.2. The finalized manuscript is translated into English (or Russian), after which the translation quality is verified by a native speaker.
7.3. A bibliographer formats the reference list according to the NLM style.
7.4. A designer performs the text layout and creates illustrations (graphs and charts) that meet printing-quality standards.
7.5. The final PDF version of the article (in both Russian and English) is proofread by a native speaker and a copy editor, and is then sent to the authors for final approval. After this stage, corrections can only be made via publishing an erratum/corrigendum.
7.6. The approved version of the article is published on the journal's website as an Online First article. The article is available in open access in full-text format, is citable, and can be referenced.
7.7. Articles from the Online First section are published in one of the journal's subsequent regular issues.