Editorial Policies

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.

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.

2.2. 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.

3.2. Data fabrication and falsification are considered unacceptable violations of scientific ethics.

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.

4.7. AI-Generated Content and Authorship Misrepresentation
The use of AI tools to generate substantial portions of a manuscript without transparent disclosure and subsequent critical intellectual synthesis by the authors is unacceptable. Submitting such work is considered a severe breach of publication ethics, specifically plagiarism (of AI-generated content) and misrepresentation of authorship. Manuscripts identified as being substantially AI-generated will be summarily rejected.
If a manuscript is resubmitted without adequately addressing prior editorial concerns regarding improper AI use, it will be rejected unconditionally. In cases of deliberate or repeated violations, the journal reserves the right to take further action, which may include notifying the authors' institution(s) and imposing a ban on future submissions from the involved authors for a defined period.

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.

6.2. 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.

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.

7.3.1. 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.

Consortium 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.

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.

Appeals or complaints may be submitted in the following circumstances:

1. Editorial decisions (challenging editorial decisions, such as manuscript rejection).
2. Procedural delays (significant delays during peer review or scientific editing stages).
3. 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.

8.3.1. 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.

The 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.

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.

11.1. 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.

Consortium PSYCHIATRICUM permits the use of AI technologies as an auxiliary tool in manuscript preparation, provided authors adhere to the following key requirements:

• Authors bear full and sole responsibility for the entire content of their work (text, data, conclusions, ethical compliance), regardless of the extent of AI use. All content created or processed with AI must be meticulously verified and edited by the authors. AI cannot be listed as an author or cited as an information source.
• Authors must inform the Editorial Office about the use of AI as a research tool, for text refinement, or for creating illustrations. The description should be sufficiently detailed to assess the authors' intellectual contribution and ensure reproducibility. Upon request, authors must provide original and AI-modified materials, as well as primary data.
• Authors must comply with the terms of service of AI tools, ensure data confidentiality, and account for potential risks of systematic bias.

The complete guidelines are available in the Instructions for Authors. 

Reviewers are prohibited from uploading manuscripts, parts of manuscripts, or review texts containing confidential information into public AI services, as this violates the confidentiality of materials under consideration.

Permitted use of AI is limited to auxiliary tasks, such as structuring a review outline, performing language editing on already written text, or consulting on general methodological questions without disclosing details of the specific manuscript.

Any other use of AI, particularly for analyzing manuscript content, requires prior written permission from the Editorial Office.

The reviewer's primary task is to evaluate the novelty, relevance, practical significance, and scholarly merit of the work. The mere fact of AI use by authors is not an evaluation criterion; reviewers must assess the completeness and accuracy of the authors' disclosure. If justified suspicions arise regarding improper or undeclared AI use, the reviewer must detail these concerns in the confidential comments for the Editor to initiate a professional dialogue with the authors.

The full set of rules, including indicators of improper AI use and reviewer procedures, is outlined in a separate Guide for Reviewers.

Editors of Consortium PSYCHIATRICUM are responsible for the scientific quality of published works and must ensure the confidentiality of manuscripts under review.

• Editors may request from authors the original data, prompts, and intermediate files to verify the authors' intellectual contribution and confirm that AI use has not distorted results or compromised research integrity.
• The use of public AI services (e.g., ChatGPT, DeepSeek) for analyzing manuscripts, reviews, author data, or for making editorial decisions is prohibited. Uploading such information to third-party systems is unacceptable.
• Permitted use includes employing authorized internal journal/publisher AI tools and approved third-party software for auxiliary checks of text and images for plagiarism and other breaches of research and publication ethics. In such cases, the responsibility for ensuring the confidentiality and copyright of transferred materials and personal data lies with the service providers.
• The use of any tools, including internal systems, does not absolve the Editor of responsibility for all edits, decisions, and the content of published materials, which must be based on professional expert judgment.

Editorial Office Staff are authorized to:

• Use AI tools to generate auxiliary content (e.g., brief summaries, social media posts, podcasts).
• Use a specifically developed, internal AI tool for the preliminary technical check of submitted manuscripts for compliance with the journal's formal requirements.
• Reject a manuscript at any stage of the publication process if undeclared or unethical use of AI is identified, including data fabrication, plagiarism, inappropriate text recycling, or the generation of unreliable content.
• Employ AI-detection tools as an auxiliary measure in exceptional cases to identify potential breaches of this policy.

• Reprint orders are accepted only after the official online or print publication of the article.
• All orders must be placed directly with the Editorial Office of the journal (E-mail: editor@consortium-psy.com).
• A reprint request must contain the full bibliographic reference of the article, the desired print run, and the delivery address.
• The journal does not process reprint orders received from third parties (e.g., printing companies) without direct prior authorization from the author(s) or the copyright holder.

• Ordering and distributing reprints does not constitute a transfer of copyright for the article.

• By placing an order, the author/organization confirms that the reprints will be distributed for non-commercial, educational, or scientific purposes, unless otherwise agreed upon with the Editorial Office.

• The full bibliographic reference (authors, title, journal, year, volume, issue, pages, DOI).

• The logo and name of the Consortium PSYCHIATRICUM journal.

• The copyright notice: "©Eco-Vector, [Year]. Published in Consortium PSYCHIATRICUM. All rights reserved."

• A disclaimer, if the article contains clinical trial data: "This information is intended for healthcare and pharmaceutical professionals. It is not promotional material for a medicinal product. Please consult a healthcare professional before use."

• It is prohibited to make any alterations to the text, graphics, or conclusions of the reprint. The addition of commercial promotional material (sponsor logos, drug names) onto the pages of the article itself is forbidden without the explicit permission of the Editorial Office. Commercial information may only be placed on a separate promotional insert or cover, clearly distinct from the scientific content.

In exceptional cases, the Editorial Board of Consortium PSYCHIATRICUM may consider the republication of an article previously published in another peer-reviewed journal. We take this step only if it provides substantial value to our readership — for example, by introducing a key work on an important topic that was previously unavailable in Russian or English. Our guiding principles remain strict adherence to copyright, full transparency, and the avoidance of duplicate publication without compelling justification.

Republication is permitted only if all the following conditions are met simultaneously:

• Permission from the copyright holder. Official written permission must be obtained from the publisher (copyright holder) and the Editor-in-Chief of the source journal. The permission must explicitly grant the right to reprint the article in Consortium PSYCHIATRICUM.
• Consent from all authors. Each and every author of the original article must provide direct written consent for republication in our journal.
• Attribution of the original source. The article must be accompanied by the following statement on its first page:

"This article was originally published in [Language] in [Full Journal Name], [Year], [Volume], [Issue], [Pages]; DOI: [Link]. Reprinted with permission from [Name of Copyright Holder]."
The reference list must cite this original publication as the first and primary reference.

• The article is republished without alterations to its scientific content, data, or conclusions. The Editorial Board may adapt the translation style and formatting to align with the journal's standards.
• The addition of a foreword from the editors, an afterword from the authors, or an updating commentary is permitted. Such material must be clearly separated from the main text and signed.
• The republished article undergoes internal editorial review but is typically not sent for additional peer review unless substantial additions or changes have been made.

• The Editorial Board does not permit republication where the primary aim is to artificially inflate bibliometric indicators (impact factor, citation counts) for authors or the journal.
• Authors must not present the republished article as an "original" work in reports, grant applications, or publication lists.
• The Editorial Board reserves the right to deny a republication request without providing a reason, particularly if there are doubts regarding its necessity, the transparency of the process, or compliance with ethical standards.

To republish an article originally published in Consortium PSYCHIATRICUM in any other journal, the following is required:

• Submit an official request to the Editorial Board.
• Obtain written permission, the terms of which (including any potential licensing fees) are determined on a case-by-case basis.
• Guarantee adherence to all principles analogous to those outlined in this policy: clear attribution of the original source, consent from authors, no alterations to content, and clear demarcation between the scientific text and any supplementary materials.
• Provide the Consortium PSYCHIATRICUM Editorial Board with the final version of the material prior to its publication to confirm the correct formatting of the reference to the original source.