Editorial Policies

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.

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.

Author Self-Archiving

The journal is compliant with Platinum Open Access mode for articles distribution.

You can find Articles Sharing Policy and Research Data Sharing Policy on the Publisher's webpage. Below you can find the journal's policy on self-archiving.

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.

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.

Advertising policy

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

Editorial process

Manuscripts submitted to the editorial office undergo several stages of review:

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.

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.