Editorial Policies
- Aims and Scope
- Sections
- Peer Review Process
- Publication Frequency
- Open Access Policy
- Archiving
- Author Self-Archiving
- Indexation
- Publishing Ethics
- Author fees
- Corrections, Retractions, and Editorial expressions of concern Policies
- Advertising policy
- Guidelines on using generative AI in manuscript preparation
- EQUATOR Network Reporting Guidelines
- Online First publications
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
EDITORIAL
RESEARCH
REVIEW
SPECIAL ARTICLE
SPECIAL VIEW
CASE REPORT
INFORMATION
DISCUSSION
COMMENTARY
HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE
CONFERENCE REPORT
POLICY STATEMENT
OPINION
INTERVIEW
LETTER TO THE EDITOR
OBITUARY
PROTOCOL
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
2.1. The Deputy Editor-in-Chief handles reviewer selection for all manuscripts.
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
Reviewers are required to:
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
4.1. The editorial team sends reviewers an official request containing the anonymized manuscript, reviewer guidelines, and a standard peer review form. Reviewers are expected to accept or decline the invitation within three business days.
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
5.1. The completed review and the manuscript are assessed by a scientific editor, who makes a preliminary decision on its suitability for publication.
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
6.1. In case of irreconcilable differences between the author and a reviewer, the editorial team may send the manuscript to another reviewer. In contentious situations, the final decision is made by the Editorial Board.
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.
6.3. Manuscripts will be rejected if the authors fail to address the reviewers' constructive comments or do not provide a point-by-point response to all feedback.
7. Archiving of Reviews
7.1. The Editorial Office will submit copies of reviews to the Russian Ministry of Science and Higher Education upon official request. Original reviews are stored in the journal's office for 5 years.
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 publication in a peer reviewed journal serves many purposes outside of simple communication. It is a building block in the development of a coherent and respected network of knowledge. For all these reasons and more it is important to lay down standards of expected ethical behaviour by all parties involved in the act of publishing: the author, the journal editor, the peer reviewer, the publisher and the society for society-owned or sponsored journal “Consortium PSYCHIATRICUM”.
1.2. Publisher has a supporting, investing and nurturing role in the scholarly communication process but is also ultimately responsible for ensuring that best practice is followed in its publications.
1.3. Publisher takes its duties of guardianship over the scholarly record extremely seriously. Our journal programmes record “the minutes of science” and we recognise our responsibilities as the keeper of those “minutes” in all our policies not least the ethical guidelines that we have here adopted.
2. Duties of Editors
2.1. Publication decision
The editor-in-chief of “Consortium PSYCHIATRICUM” is solely and independently responsible for deciding which of the articles submitted to the journal should be published, often working in conjunction with the relevant society. The validation of the work in question and its importance to researchers and readers must always underwrite such decisions. The editor-in-chief may be guided by the policies of the “Consortium PSYCHIATRICUM” journal’s editorial board and constrained by such legal requirements as are currently in force regarding libel, copyright infringement and plagiarism.
The editor-in-chief may confer with other editors or reviewers (or society officers) in making this decision.
2.2. Fair play
The editor should evaluate manuscripts for their intellectual content without regard to the authors’ race, gender, sexual orientation, religious belief, ethnic origin, citizenship, or political philosophy.
2.3. Confidentiality
The editor-in-chief and any editorial staff of “Consortium PSYCHIATRICUM” must not disclose any information about a submitted manuscript to anyone other than the corresponding author, reviewers, potential reviewers, other editorial advisers, and the publisher, as appropriate.
2.4. Disclosure and conflicts of interest
2.4.1. Unpublished materials disclosed in a submitted manuscript must not be used in an editor’s own research without the express written consent of the author. Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not used for personal advantage.
2.4.2. 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.
2.5. 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.
2.6. 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, acting 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.
3. Duties of Reviewers
3.1. Contribution to editorial decisions
Peer review is an essential component of formal scholarly communication, and lies at the heart of the scientific method. Peer review helps the editor to make editorial decisions. It also may assist the authors in improving their papers, through the editorial communications with the authors. The publisher shares the view of many that all scholars who wish to contribute to publications have an obligation to do a fair share of reviewing.
3.2. Promptness
Any selected 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 the journal and excuse himself from the review process.
3.3. Confidentiality
All manuscripts received for review must be treated as confidential documents. They must not be shown to or discussed with others except as authorised by the editor.
3.4. Standard and objectivity
Reviews should be conducted objectively. Personal criticism of the author is inappropriate. Referees should express their views clearly with supporting arguments.
3.5. Acknowledgement of sources
Reviewers should identify relevant published works that have not been cited by the authors. Any statement (observation, derivation, argument) that was previously reported should be accompanied by the relevant citation. A reviewer should also call to the editor’s attention any substantial similarity or overlap between the manuscript under consideration and any other published paper of which they have personal knowledge.
3.6. Disclosure and conflict of interest
3.6.1. Unpublished materials disclosed in a submitted manuscript must not be used in a reviewer’s own research without the express written consent of the author. Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not used for personal advantage.
3.6.2. Reviewers should not consider manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies, or institutions connected to the papers.
4. Duties of Authors
4.1. Reporting standards
4.1.1. Authors of reports of original research should present an accurate account of the work performed as well as an objective discussion of its significance. Underlying data should be represented accurately in the paper. A paper should contain sufficient detail and references to permit others to replicate the work. Fraudulent or knowingly inaccurate statements constitute unethical behaviour and are unacceptable.
4.1.2. Review and professional publication articles should also be accurate and objective, and editorial opinion’ works should be clearly identified as such.
4.2. Data access and retention
Authors may be asked to provide the raw data in connection with a paper for editorial review, and should be prepared to provide public access to such data (consistent with the ALPSP-STM Statement on Data and Databases), if practicable, and should in any event be prepared to retain such data for a reasonable time after publication.
4.3. Originality and plagiarism
4.3.1. Authors should ensure that they have written and submit entirely original works, and if they have used the work and/or words of others, this has been appropriately cited or quoted.
4.3.2. Plagiarism takes many forms, from ‘passing off’ another’s paper as the author’s own paper, to copying or paraphrasing substantial parts of another’s paper (without attribution), to claiming results from research conducted by others. Plagiarism in all its forms constitutes unethical publishing behaviour and is unacceptable.
4.3.3. Publication of works containing plagiarism of text, ideas, and data is prohibited. Authors should submit fully original works. Results of other authors’ work should be appropriately cited or quoted; quotations of a text previously published should be written as the direct speech with the obligatory indication of the original source.
4.3.4. The editorial board of the journal checks the material using plagiarism detection software Antiplagiat and Google Scholar to screen the submissions. In case of identification of illegally borrowed text and graphic elements, low coefficient of originality of the text, the editors have the right to demand to correct the article or refuse to publish it.
4.3.5. Detection of plagiarism is also carried out as part of an open peer review. If plagiarism is identified, the editorial board acts in accordance with the COPE guidelines. Even published article will be retracted if plagiarism is found.
4.4. Multiple, redundant or concurrent publication
4.4.1. In general, an author should not publish manuscripts describing essentially the same research in more than one journal of primary publication. Submitting the same manuscript to more than one journal concurrently constitutes unethical publishing behaviour and is unacceptable.
4.4.2. An author should not submit for consideration in another journal a previously published paper.
4.4.3. Publication of some kinds of articles (e.g., 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 details on acceptable forms of secondary publication can be found at www.icmje.org.
4.5. Acknowledgement of sources
Proper acknowledgment of the work of others must always be given. Authors should cite publications that have been influential in determining the nature of the reported work. Information obtained privately, as in conversation, correspondence, or discussion with third parties, must not be used or reported without explicit, written permission from the source. Information obtained in the course of confidential services, such as refereeing manuscripts or grant applications, must not be used without the explicit written permission of the author of the work involved in these services.
4.6. Authorship of the paper
4.6.1. Authorship should be limited to those who have made a significant contribution to the conception, design, execution, or interpretation of the reported study. All those who have made significant contributions should be listed as co-authors. Where there are others who have participated in certain substantive aspects of the research project, they should be acknowledged or listed as contributors.
4.6.2. The corresponding author should ensure that all appropriate co-authors and no inappropriate co-authors are included on the paper, and that all co-authors have seen and approved the final version of the paper and have agreed to its submission for publication.
4.7. Hazards and human or animal subjects
4.7.1. If the work involves chemicals, procedures or equipment that have any unusual hazards inherent in their use, the author must clearly identify these in the manuscript.
4.7.2. If the work involves the use of animal or human subjects, the author should ensure that the manuscript contains a statement that all procedures were performed in compliance with relevant laws and institutional guidelines and that the appropriate institutional committee(s) has approved them. Authors should include a statement in the manuscript that informed consent was obtained for experimentation with human subjects. The privacy rights of human subjects must always be observed.
4.8. Disclosure and conflicts of interest
4.8.1. All authors should disclose in their manuscript any financial or other substantive conflict of interest that might be construed to influence the results or interpretation of their manuscript. All sources of financial support for the project should be disclosed.
4.8.2. Examples of potential conflicts of interest which should be disclosed include employment, consultancies, stock ownership, honoraria, paid expert testimony, patent applications/registrations, and grants or other funding. Potential conflicts of interest should be disclosed at the earliest possible stage.
4.9. Fundamental errors in published works
When an author discovers a significant error or inaccuracy in a published work, it is the author’s obligation to promptly notify the editor of “Consortium PSYCHIATRICUM” and cooperate with the editor and the publisher 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.
5. Duties of the Publisher
5.1. The publisher should adopt policies and procedures that support editors, reviewers and authors of the 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.
5.2. The publisher should support editors in the review of complaints raised concerning ethical issues and help communications with other journals and/or publishers where this is useful to editors.
5.3. The publisher should develop codes of practice and inculcate industry standards for best practice on ethical matters, errors and retractions.
5.4. Publisher should provide specialised legal review and counsel if necessary.
The section is prepared according to the files of Elsevier publisher and files from Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).
Author fees
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.
Corrections, Retractions, and Editorial expressions of concern Policies
Consortium PSYCHIATRICUM journal is committed to uphold the integrity of the literature and publishes Errata (Corrections), Expressions of Concerns or Retraction Notices dependent on the situation and in accordance with the COPE Retraction Guidelines. In all cases, these notices are linked to the original article.
When an author discovers a significant error or inaccuracy in his/her own published work, it is the authors obligation to promptly notify the journal editor or 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 or provide evidence to the editor of the correctness of the original paper.
When errors are identified in published articles, the publisher will consider what action is required and may consult the editors and the authors’ institution(s).
Errors by the authors may be corrected by a corrigendum, and errors by the publisher — by an erratum (see more).
If there are errors that significantly affect the conclusions or there is evidence of misconduct, this may require retraction or an expression of concern following the COPE Retraction Guidelines. All authors will be asked to agree to the content of the appropriate notice.
According to the rules of the Council on Ethics of Scientific Publications of Association of Science Editors and Publishers, the grounds for article retraction are:
- detection of plagiarism in the article;
- detection of falsifications (for example, manipulation of experimental data);
- detection of serious errors that cast doubt on scientific value of the article;
- incorrect list of authors;
- duplication of the article in several journals;
- republishing the article without the author’s consent;
- concealment of conflict of interest and other violations of publication ethics;
- the fact that the article hasn’t been peer reviewed.
After the decision to retract the article is made, the editor-in-chief informs its authors, indicating the reason and date of retraction. The article remains on the journal’s site as part of the corresponding journal issue, but is marked “retracted” with the retraction date (the mark is placed on top of the text of the article and in the table of contents); in addition, a message about retraction is placed in the news section of the site, and the chief editor sends information about the article retraction to all online libraries and databases in which the journal is indexed.
Information on COPE Retraction Guidelines can be found here: Retraction Guidelines
More details can be observed on the Eco-Vector CrossMark Policy page: http://doi.org/10.17816/crossmarkpolicy2018
Advertising policy
Our advertising policy is consistent with the principles mentioned in the Recommendations on Publication Ethics Policies for Medical Journals which issued by the World Association of Medical Editors (WAME).
http://www.wame.org/recommendations-on-publication-ethics-policie
- The Consortium PSYCHIATRICUM journal generates revenue for Eco-Vector (Publisher) from advertising, which creates a potential conflict of interest. Editors’ decisions do not depend on the cost of advertising or producing reprints. Advertisers and sponsors have no influence over the editor’s decisions, regardless of the terms of advertising or other agreements.
- All advertisements are subject to the approval of the Publisher’s staff, which reserves the right to reject or cancel any advertisement at any time.
- The functions of the Consortium PSYCHIATRICUM journal editors and Publisher's advertising managers are separate.
- In the Consortium PSYCHIATRICUM journal professional (physician-directed) publications and web sites, the intentional placement of advertising adjacent to articles discussing the company or product that is the subject of the advertisement is prohibited. Advertising content must be distinguished from editorial and other materials so that the difference between them is obvious.
- The Consortium PSYCHIATRICUM journal will not publish “advertorial” content, and sponsored supplements must be clearly indicated as such. If a supplement did not undergo peer review or underwent a peer review-process different from the rest of the journal that should be explicitly stated.
- The Consortium PSYCHIATRICUM journal has the right to refuse any advertisement that, in its sole discretion, is incompatible with its mission or inconsistent with the values of members, the publication/web site or the organization as a whole, and to stop accepting any advertisement previously accepted. Advertisements are subject to review by the editors and others at the Publisher’s site. In no case shall separate agreements with Publisher or the Consortium PSYCHIATRICUM journal staff supersede this policy.
- Once an advertisement has been deployed online, it will be withdrawn from the journal site at any time if the Editor(s)-in-Chief or Publisher’s staff request its removal.
- Advertising for the following categories is prohibited:
- Alcohol
- Tobacco
- Weapons, firearms, ammunition
- Fireworks
- Gambling and lottery
- Pornography or related themes
- Political and religious advertisements
- Advertisements that claim to have a “miracle” cure or method
- Advertisements that make unsubstantiated health claims for the products advertised
- Advertisements directed at children
- Advertisements may not be deceptive or misleading, and must be verifiable. Advertisements should clearly identify the advertiser and the product or service being offered. Exaggerated or extravagantly worded copy will not be allowed. Advertisements will not be accepted if they appear to be indecent or offensive in either text or artwork, or if they relate to content of a personal, racial, ethnic, sexual orientation, or religious nature.
- All advertisements are accepted and published by the Publisher on the warranty of the advertisement agency and advertiser that both are authorized to publish the entire contents and subject matter of the advertisement.
- In consideration of publication of an advertisement, the advertiser and the advertisement agency, jointly and severally, agree to indemnify and hold harmless the Publisher, its officers, agents and employees against expenses (including legal fees) and losses resulting from the publication of the contents of the advertisement, including, without limitation, claims or suits for libel, violation of privacy, copyright infringement, or plagiarism.
- Any references to Publisher or its products or services in advertisements, promotional material, or merchandising by the advertiser or agency is subject to Publisher’s written approval for such use.
- All advertisements for drug-specific campaigns must comply with the relevant Russian legislation that regulates advertising. Advertisers should make available to the Publisher the marketing authorization and summary of product characteristics when submitting their advertisement. In the case of drug advertisements, proprietary names of pharmaceutical products must be accompanied by the chemical, generic, or official name; the quantity of all active substances must be stated along with the recommended dosage. Each page of an advertisement for a prescription-only medicine should be clearly labeled as intended for health professionals.
- Advertisements for products not approved by the FDA or the Ministry of Health of Russian Federation that make any kind of health claims must carry the following disclaimer: “These statements have not been evaluated by the Food and Drug Administration and/or the Ministry of Health of Russian Federation. This product is not intended to diagnose, treat, cure or prevent any disease.”
- While the Consortium PSYCHIATRICUM journal welcomes and encourages information-rich advertising, advertisements, advertising icons and advertiser logos must be clearly distinguishable from editorial content and may require special labeling to distinguish them as such. All advertisements must clearly and prominently identify the advertiser by trademark or signature.
- Reprints should be published only in the form in which they were originally published in the journal (including subsequent corrections), so there should be no additions or changes in them.
- Publisher is not responsible for incidental or consequential damage for errors in displaying or printing an advertisement.
- Advertisements may not imply endorsement by the Consortium PSYCHIATRICUM journal or its publications/web sites except as may be provided for under a separate agreement — in which case advertising must be pre-approved to ensure adherence to the letter and spirit of that separate agreement.
- The full rules for any market research or promotion associated with an advertisement must be displayed in the advertisement or available via a prominent link.
- The following online advertising formats are prohibited:
- Pop-ups and floating advertisements.
- Advertisements that collect personally identifiable information from visitors without their knowledge or permission.
- Advertisements that extend across or down the page without the visitor having clicked or rolled-over the advertisement.
- Advertisements that send visitors to another site without the visitor having clicked the advertisement.
The Consortium PSYCHIATRICUM journal published advertising policies are not exhaustive and are subject to change at any time without notice.
We partner with third-party advertising companies to serve ads and/or collect certain information when you visit our website. These companies may use cookies or web beacons to collect non-personally identifiable information [not including your name, address, email address or telephone number] during your visit to this website to help show advertisements on other websites also likely to be of interest to you.
For contact with the Advertisement department of the Publisher, please, follow the link https://eco-vector.com/
Guidelines 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. General Information.
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