Editorial

Editor-in-Chief: Shoranov Marat Edigeevich, Candidate of Medical Sciences, Chairman of the Board-Rector of the NJSC “Kazakh National Medical University named after S.D. Asfendiyarov".

Deputy Editor-in-Chief: Davletov Kairat Kirgizbaevich, Candidate of medical sciences, Professor, Vise Rector of the NJSC “Kazakh National Medical University named after S.D. Asfendiyarov".

Editor: Kulimbet Mukhtar Bolatuly, Research Specialist of the Center of medicine and public health, NJSC “Kazakh National Medical University named after S.D. Asfendiyarov".

Technical editor: Davletov Dimash Kairatovich, Technical editor of the department of science and publication activity, NJSC “Kazakh National Medical University named after S.D. Asfendiyarov".

Editorial board:

International Editorial Board:

EDITORIAL POLICY OF THE JOURNAL

The goals of the journal are to summarize scientific and practical achievements in the field of medicine, pharmacy, pharmacology, public health and innovative teaching methods, to improve the scientific and practical qualifications of healthcare and pharmacy workers.

Objectives:
• Cover new scientific findings in the field of health.
• To increase the openness and accessibility of the results of scientific work of scientific, practical and teaching workers, doctors and students in various fields of healthcare and pharmacy.
• Improve the professional level of medical, pharmaceutical, scientific and pedagogical workers by publishing original articles, results of fundamental and applied research aimed at developing and studying for the development of healthcare, lectures and literature reviews on a wide range of issues of medicine and healthcare.
• present the results of scientific research, clinical observations, consider issues of the effectiveness of methods of treatment and diagnosis of various diseases;
• discuss ways to improve the effectiveness of medical education;
• publish information about new effective pedagogical developments that can be used in the field of medical education;
• contribute to increasing the efficiency of implementation of scientific research results into the practice of health care and medical education;
• provide information on fundamental achievements in the field of biomedical sciences, ensuring the development of applied areas of medical science.

Periodicity
Quarterly – 4 times a year

Open Access Policy
In an effort to attract the maximum audience of specialists for a broad (including critical) discussion of published articles, as well as the introduction of scientific research results into the practice of domestic medicine, healthcare and pharmacy, medical and pharmaceutical education, the journal follows a policy of full open access to publications. All content of the journal is available to users free of charge on the journal's website. Users are allowed to read, download, copy, distribute, and print the full texts of journal articles.

Information openness. Information about the publishing house, editorial board, reviewing and publication of scientific articles, and other information in accordance with the information openness of the publication is published on the journal’s website.

Guidelines of the journal "Vestnik KazNMU"

The main directions of the journal "Vestnik KazNMU"

Archiving
The journal "Vestnik KazNMU" adheres to the policy of open archiving, to improve the search and citation of the article by other authors. Electronic versions of the old issue are placed in the archive of the journal's website for free access.

Publication Ethics
The interaction of authors, editorial staff of the journal "Vestnik KazNMU", reviewers, members of the editorial board is based on the principles of publication ethics. Authors, editorial staff of the journal "Vestnik KazNMU", reviewers, members of the editorial board are obliged to follow the ethical principles presented below:
1. Review all manuscripts and other materials provided by the author and make an objective decision on the possibility of their publication, based on the relevance and reliability of the research conducted and compliance with the profile of the journal.
2. Respect the author regardless of his gender, race or other subjective qualities, protect freedom of scientific opinion.
3. Respect the author's right to intellectual property, preventing disclosure of research data or their use for personal purposes without the consent of the author.
4. Exclude from publication materials containing falsification of results, plagiarism, multiple copying of information and false attribution of authorship.
5. Ensure confidentiality and anonymity of manuscript review.
6. Involve only highly qualified specialists in the field in reviewing articles.
7. Ensure strict adherence to the quality and deadlines of review.
8. Recognize that the journal's activities are aimed at the benefit of science, and not at making a profit.
9. Continuously work to improve the standards of publication activities, introducing ISO procedures to ensure the high quality of published materials.
10. Continuously develop and update the reviewer database.
11. Periodically organize meetings of the Editorial Board members (in person or remotely) to discuss the journal's development strategy and current problems.
12. Encourage discussions on the pages of the journal and be ready to consider convincing criticism of the work published in the journal.
13. Do not exclude from consideration manuscripts containing negative results.

Submitting materials

To submit material you need to Login or Register.

Checklist for preparing material for submission

As part of the submission process, authors must verify that their submission meets all of the following points, and submissions may be returned to authors if they do not meet these requirements.
• This material has not been previously published, nor has it been submitted for review and publication in another journal (or explained in the Notes to the Editor).
• The file with the material is presented in Microsoft Word document format.
• Full Internet addresses (URLs) are provided for references where possible.
• The text is typed with single line spacing; 12 point font size is used; Use italics rather than underlining for emphasis (except for URLs); All illustrations, graphs and tables are located in appropriate places in the text, and not at the end of the document.
• The text complies with the stylistic and bibliographic requirements described in the Guidelines for Authors.

Editorial

1. Scientific articles submitted to the editorial office go through the reviewing institute. The journal practices double-blind reviewing, that is, the reviewer does not know the name of the author of the manuscript and vice versa.
2. The editors of the journal notify authors of receipt of the article within 5 working days.
3. The editor-in-chief, together with the editorial board, appoints two reviewers for each manuscript
4. The executive secretary sends the manuscript to reviewers within 3 working days after the appointment of reviewers
5. The first reviewer is a qualified expert on the topic of the manuscript
6. The second reviewer is an expert in study design, clinical epidemiology and biostatistics and assesses the methodological quality of the work.
7. Reviewers submit written reviews to the editor within 4 weeks.
8. In the review, in addition to a critical assessment of the article, a conclusion is made about the possibility of publishing this article in the journal: “accept for publication in its present form”, “accept for publication after making recommended changes” or “send for revision and re-consider the manuscript after revision”, “reject."
9. The executive secretary of the journal informs the authors about the results of the review of the article.
10. If an article is rejected from publication, the editors send a reasoned refusal to the author.
11. An article not recommended for publication by reviewers will not be accepted for re-consideration.
12. The final decision on the advisability of publication is made by the editorial board.
13. The Editorial Board reserves the right to reject an article that does not meet the established requirements or the scope of the journal.
14. After the decision is made to accept the article for publication, the technical editor of the journal informs the author about this and agrees on the timing of publication.
15. The editors have the right to carry out literary editing and, if necessary, reduce the length of the article, having agreed on this issue with the author.
16. Originals of manuscripts and reviews are stored in the editorial office of the journal

Policy on revocation or correction of articles

Journal editors should consider revoking a publication if:

- they have clear evidence of the unreliability of the published information, which arose either as a result of a serious error (for example, errors in calculations or experiments) or as a result of deliberate actions (for example, falsification of data) or deliberate falsification (for example, image manipulation);
- she is a plagiarist. Previously obtained results were published in other sources without proper reference to previous sources or disclosure of information to the editor, permission to republish or justification for the need for re-publication (i.e. cases of duplicate publication).
- it contains materials or data without permission to use. Copyright has been violated or there is some other serious legal problem (e.g. libel, confidentiality).
- she describes unethical research.
- it was published solely on the basis of a compromised or manipulated peer review process.
- the author(s) did not disclose a major competing interest (also known as a conflict of interest), which, in the opinion of the editor, would have influenced the interpretation of the work or the recommendations of editors and reviewers.

A review is not appropriate if:
- the authorship is disputed, but there is no reason to doubt the reliability of the conclusions.
- the main conclusions in the work are still reliable and their correction can sufficiently eliminate errors or problems.
- the editor has inconclusive evidence to withdraw the article, or is awaiting additional information, for example, an internal institutional investigation.
- the authors reported a conflict of interest after publication, but, in the opinion of the editor, the disclosure did not affect the interpretation of the results, recommendations or conclusions set out in the article.

Journal editors should consider expressing concern if:
- they received information about the inappropriate actions of the authors, but there is no clear evidence of such behavior.;
- there are arguments that the results of the work are unreliable, and the institution where the authors work is not going to find out the truth;
- they believe that the investigation of the alleged violations committed by the authors in connection with the publication either has not been, or will not be fair, impartial and convincing;
- an investigation of the authors' violations is underway, but its results are not expected soon enough

The purpose of the review of the publication
A review is a mechanism for correcting published information and alerting readers to publications containing such serious flaws or erroneous data that cannot be trusted. The unreliability of the data may be the result of good faith misconception and error or deliberate violations.
The main purpose of the review is to correct the published information and ensure its integrity, and not to punish the authors who committed violations.
Reviews are also used to warn readers about cases of duplicate publications (that is, when authors present the same data in several publications), plagiarism, manipulation of expert assessment, reuse of materials or data without permission, copyright infringement or any other legal problem (for example, defamation, confidentiality, illegality), unethical research and concealment of important conflicts of interest that may affect the interpretation of data or recommendations on their use.

Which publications should be withdrawn?
If only a small part of the article contains inaccurate data, especially as a result of a conscientious error, the best way to solve the problem is to make a correction or write in the list of typos. A partial review is impractical because it complicates the determination of the status of the article by readers and the reliability of its parts.
Similarly, if only a small part of the article (for example, a few sentences in the discussion) is plagiarism, editors should consider whether it would be better for readers (and for the author of the original work) if the article were amended (with correct references to the source) than if the entire article was withdrawn completely, which It may contain meaning and original data in its other parts as well.
In cases of duplicate publications (i.e., when the authors have published the same data or article in more than one journal without appropriate justification, permission and cross-references), the journal that first published the article may issue a notification of a duplicate publication (Redundant Publication), but it must withdraw the article only if its conclusions are unreliable. Any journals that subsequently print a duplicate article should withdraw it and indicate the reason for the withdrawal.
If an article is submitted to more than one journal at the same time, accepted and printed in both journals (in electronic or printed form) at the same time, priority may be set by the date on which the authors signed a publication license or copyright transfer agreement.
Journals publishing an article that synthesizes or collects data from redundant publications may consider making edits; duplicating the calculation of the same data may lead, in cases of meta-analysis and systematic review, to overestimate the size of the action and the benefits of the intervention.
In cases of partial duplication (that is, when the authors present some new findings in an article that also contains a significant amount of previously published information), editors should decide what would be best for readers: withdraw the entire article or issue a notice of duplicate publication indicating previously published parts and cross-referencing the previous work. This will depend on the amount of duplication: in some cases (for example, a description of a standard method), a limited degree of text duplication (https://bit.ly/2qSK0Xz ) is quite acceptable.
Recommendations for handling duplicate materials discovered before their publication, or already published, can be found in the relevant COPE diagrams (https://bit.ly/2rtSl4m ).
The publication of the final version on the website ("Accepted for publication") is a publication, even if the article has not appeared (or will not appear) in print. If the article is withdrawn before the printed version appears in the journal, the electronic version must be saved on the journal's website with a clear Notice of Withdrawal and included in bibliographic databases (for example, with a digital object identifier (DOI) or with another permanent link that determines its location), even if it does not appear in the printed version of the journal and thus will not be posted on the page. This is necessary because researchers have already been able to access it and cite electronic versions of the article, and they need to be warned about its withdrawal.
Articles that relied on data from subsequently withdrawn articles in their own conclusions, such as systematic reviews or meta-analyses, may themselves need to be corrected or withdrawn. The review of the publication may be requested by the author(s) of the article, the institution, readers or the editor.

What form should the review take?
The notice of withdrawal should be for each article, contain the reasons and grounds for the withdrawal, in a form understandable to the reader; it should also indicate the persons withdrawing the article and, possibly, how the case came to the attention of the journal (plaintiffs can be made public only if they have given permission).
Editors should, if possible, negotiate with the authors and agree on a form of wording acceptable to all parties. However, the time to formulate the text of the review should not be too long. A notice of withdrawal may be published even if no agreement has been reached.
Notifications must be published in all versions of the journal (i.e. printed and/or electronic). It is necessary to include the authors and the title of the withdrawn article in the title of the withdrawal notification. Example of the review form of the European Association of Scientific Editors (EASE) (https://bit.ly/2kqAo3O ).
The withdrawn articles should be clearly marked as such in all electronic sources (for example, on the journal's website and in any bibliographic databases). Editors are responsible for ensuring that the withdrawn publications are marked in such a way that they are well identified as such by all bibliographic databases (which should also include a link to the withdrawn article). The notification of withdrawal should become known to every electronic search engine of the recalled publications.
Withdrawn articles should not be deleted from either printed copies of the journal (for example, in libraries) or from electronic archives, except in extreme cases when the content contains defamation, violates personal integrity, is the subject of a court order or may pose a serious risk to the health of the general population. Then the metadata (title and authors) is saved, and the review notification clearly states why the entire article was deleted.

Who should carry out the recall?
In some cases, review notices are published jointly or on behalf of the journal owner (for example, an academic society or publisher). However, since the editor is responsible for the content of the journal, the final decision on the withdrawal of the material should always be made by him. Journal editors can withdraw publications (or express their concern), even if all or some of the authors disagree with this and refuse to withdraw the publication. Who exactly is withdrawing the article should be clearly indicated in the withdrawal notice.

How quickly should the publication be withdrawn?
Publications should be withdrawn immediately after the editor of the journal is convinced that the publication has serious violations and contains deliberately false information and falls under any of the above categories. Prompt feedback should minimize the number of researchers who cite erroneous works, are guided by conclusions from them, or come to incorrect conclusions, for example, using duplicate publications in meta-analyses or in similar cases.
If the editors have convincing evidence of the need to withdraw the article, they should withdraw the publication immediately, without postponing the review only because the authors do not want to cooperate with them. However, if an allegation of violations regarding a potential recall leads to disciplinary hearings or internal investigations of the institutions where the study was conducted, it is necessary to wait for their results before carrying out the recall (but in the meantime it is necessary to publish an Expression of Concern to warn readers).
If a letter or comment that has been submitted regarding a published article raises serious concerns, then the editor should not wait for a decision to submit a clarifying letter or comment in order to consider withdrawing the article or publishing an Expression of Concern.
If editors or journals have good reason to suspect deliberate misconduct, this should be brought to the attention of the institution on whose behalf the authors act as early as possible, but the decision to correct or withdraw the article should be made by the journal and does not necessarily depend on the institutional establishment of the fact of misconduct.
Journals should discuss the situation with the author(s) before contacting the institutions, but if there is well-founded evidence of serious misconduct, in rare cases journals may contact the institutions without prior notification of the authors: editors should use the COPE guidelines: Cooperation between Research Institutes and Journals on the Integrity of Scientific Research (https://doi.org/10.24318/cope.2018 .1.3) and the recommendations of CLUE: Wager E et al., Collaboration and communication between universities and editors (CLUE): Best practice recommendations, bioRxiv 139170; DOI: (https://doi.org/10.1101/139170 ).
If necessary, the previously corrected article may be further corrected or the previously corrected article may be withdrawn after the completion of the institutional investigation. Whenever possible, the results of the institutional investigation should be cited and cited in the notification, and any findings of misconduct should be attributed accordingly to the institution that made this conclusion.
How should editors act if the evidence of unreliability of the publication is not sufficient?
If it is impossible to obtain convincing evidence of the authenticity of the publication or will not be received in the foreseeable future, the article cannot be withdrawn, but the editor must publish an Expression of Concern.

Can the review be applied in cases of disputed authorship?
Sometimes authors ask to withdraw an article when the authorship is disputed after publication. If there is no reason to doubt the validity of the conclusions or the reliability of the data, the publication should not be withdrawn solely on the basis of disputes about authorship. In such cases, the editor of the journal should inform the persons involved in the dispute that he/she cannot make judgments in such cases, but will be ready to publish the corrected list of authors if the authors/co-authors (or their institutions) provide appropriate evidence that such a change is justified. For authorship disputes that arose prior to publication, see the relevant COPE diagrams (https://bit.ly/34TQkNu ).

Do the authors have the right to refuse a revoked publication?
If the review is related to the actions of several, but not all, authors of the publication, this must be reported in the Review Notification. However, authorship entails some degree of collective responsibility for the integrity of the research, so it is unacceptable for authors to refuse a retracted publication, even if they were not directly responsible for violations.

Republishing the recalled content
The author may republish some works if not all the content has been found to be unreliable. To ensure transparency, the authors must notify the editorial board of the new journal of the previous refusal, and it is appropriate to quote a rebuttal indicating why the work was withdrawn and what was corrected in the course of work.
Permission to republish must also be agreed with the copyright holder of the withdrawn work. In some cases, journals may wish to work with a retracted article by the authors while simultaneously publishing a linked and corrected version of the work. This "recall and republish" strategy is not usually used, but it can provide an opportunity for journals and authors to transparently correct the literature when a simple correction cannot sufficiently eliminate the shortcomings of the original article (for example, Cagney et al., Retraction and republication – a new tool for correcting the scientific record? European Science Editing, February 2016; 42(1) (https://bit.ly/2m03tTQ). In this case, the original article should not be completely deleted or “replaced”, but should be saved and linked to the new one.

RIGHTS AND OBLIGATIONS

Rights and responsibilities of the Editors
The editors of the journal "Vestnik KazNMU" is responsible for the risks arising in the area of competence of the editorial board of the journal.
The editor is responsible for compliance with the requirements of the anti-corruption management system, anti-corruption policy, rules for resolving conflicts of interest, internal regulatory documents and legislative acts of the Republic of Kazakhstan.

Rights and Responsibilities of Reviewers
The reviewer is responsible for observing the following basic principles:
1. To carry out a confidential scientific examination of the author's materials, which is intended to improve its quality and help the editorial board decide on the possibility of publishing the results of the study.
2. To refuse to review in case of insufficient qualifications for this or the inability to provide a review of the manuscript within the specified time frame and in case of an obvious conflict of interest that affects the perception and interpretation of the manuscript materials. Based on the results of reviewing the manuscript, the reviewer makes recommendations on the future fate of the article (each decision of the reviewer is justified).
3. To guarantee maximum objectivity of the review based on the relevance, scientific significance, reliability and novelty of the results of the study conducted by the author. Any critical comments of a subjective nature arising from a personal attitude towards the author or any other reasons are unacceptable and will not be allowed.
4. To report all cases of a possible conflict of interest.
5. Do not keep copies of the manuscript and do not transfer its materials to other persons. In addition, the information provided in the manuscript under review cannot be used in one's own research before publication without the consent of the author.
6. Check the clarity of the presentation of the material under review and the presence of references to all the information used from previously published works.
7. Substantiate your conclusions about the manuscript under review so that the author and members of the editorial board understand their objectivity and legality.
8. Inform members of the editorial board if the manuscript under review has significant similarities with previously published articles, i.e. about cases of plagiarism.

Rights and responsibilities of the Author
Authors must present an accurate account of the work performed, including a discussion of the significance of the research. The data underlying the work must be presented without errors. The work must contain sufficient detail and references to allow reproduction. False or knowingly inaccurate statements constitute unethical behavior and are unacceptable.
Reviews and research articles must also be accurate and objective.
Authors may be asked to provide raw data relevant to the manuscript for review by the Editors. Authors should be prepared to provide public access to such information (in accordance with the ALPSP-STM Statement on Data and Databases), where feasible, and in any event be prepared to retain these data for an adequate period of time after publication.
When reporting the results of experimental studies on human subjects, authors should indicate whether the procedures followed were in accordance with the ethical standards set out in the Declaration of Helsinki. If the study was conducted without taking into account the principles of the Declaration, the authors must justify the chosen approach to conducting the study and ensure that the ethical committee of the organization where the study was conducted approved the chosen approach.

Rights and responsibilities of Editorial Board
Editorial board should take reasonable steps to detect and prevent publication of articles in which research misconduct has occurred.
Editorial board should not encourage or knowingly permit such misconduct.
If an editorial board member becomes aware of any fact or allegation of research misconduct, the editorial board should consider the fact or allegation accordingly.
Editorial board should always be prepared to publish corrections, clarifications, retractions, and apologies when appropriate.

CONFIDENTIALITY

Names and email addresses entered on the journal's website will be used solely on the site, and will not be used for any other purpose or provided to other individuals or organizations.

PUBLICATION ETHICS

Publication ethics
The editorial staff and the editorial board and editorial council of the journal “Bulletin of KazNMU” (hereinafter referred to as the journal) rely in their work on the principles of publication ethics accepted by the international community: Code of Publication Ethics (Committee on Publication Ethics), Articles 971-984 of the Civil Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan of the Constitution of the Republic of Kazakhstan, The Law of the Republic of Kazakhstan “On Copyright and Related Rights”, Chapter 3 of the Law of the Republic of Kazakhstan “On Science”, and also take into account the experience of authoritative international journals and publishing houses.
In order to avoid unfair practices in publishing activities (plagiarism, presentation of false information, etc.), each member of the editorial board, editorial board, author and reviewer is obliged to comply with ethical standards and rules, as well as take measures to prevent their violations. If in the process of reviewing works, inaccurate information, plagiarism, repetitions of previously published works, their translations, etc. are discovered, the article will be removed from publication. Compliance with the rules of ethics of scientific publications helps to ensure the rights of authors to intellectual property, improves the quality of publication and excludes the unlawful use of copyright materials in the interests of individuals.
Ethical principles that should guide the author of a scientific publication
Submission of an article for consideration to the editorial board of the journal implies that it contains new scientific results obtained by the author (team of authors) that have not previously been published anywhere.
Authors must be aware that they bear personal responsibility for the submitted text of the manuscript and comply with the following principles:
Provide reliable results of the work done and an objective discussion of the research.
Ensure that the research results presented in the manuscript represent independent and original work. In the case of using fragments of other people's works and/or borrowing statements of other authors, the article must contain bibliographical references with the obligatory indication of the author and the original source. Plagiarism in any form (unquoted quotes, paraphrasing, or appropriation of rights to the results of others' research) is unethical and unacceptable.
The author must immediately notify the editor if a significant error or inaccuracy is discovered in his published work and provide assistance in eliminating or correcting the error.
All those who made significant contributions to the writing of the manuscript should be listed as co-authors. The author (first) must familiarize all co-authors with the final version of the article, obtain their approval and agreement with its submission for publication. All authors listed in the article must be responsible for the content of the article.
Submit the article for consideration only to the journal “Bulletin of KazNMU”. Failure to comply with this principle is regarded as a gross violation of publication ethics and provides grounds for removing the article from review.
Ethical principles in the activities of a reviewer
The reviewer carries out a scientific examination of the author's materials. His actions must be impartial, consisting in compliance with the following principles:
Expert assessment should help the author improve the quality of the article text, and the editors should help make a decision on publication.
Any manuscript received for review is a confidential document.
The reviewer must be objective and express his opinion clearly and reasonably.
The reviewer should not use information and ideas from the article submitted to him for review for personal gain, maintaining the confidentiality of this information and ideas.The reviewer should not accept manuscripts for consideration if there is a conflict of interest caused by competition, collaboration or other relationships with any authors or organizations associated with the article.
Principles of professional ethics in the activities of editors and the editorial board
In their activities, members of the journal's editorial board are responsible for the publication of copyrighted works, which entails the need to follow the following fundamental principles:
The editor and editorial staff must be responsible for everything that is published in the journal.When making a decision on publication, journal editors are guided by the reliability of the data presented and the scientific significance of the work under consideration.
Editorial staff must not have any conflict of interest in relation to articles they reject or accept. The journal's editorial staff are responsible for deciding which of the articles submitted to the journal will be accepted for publication and which will be rejected.
Editorial staff should not allow information to be published if there are sufficient grounds to believe that it is plagiarism.
Editorial staff and members of the journal's editorial board must ensure the confidentiality of names and other information relating to reviewers.
Conflicts of interest
Editors and editorial boards are required to request that authors of manuscripts disclose existing competing interests. If a conflict of interest is identified after publication, the editorial board is obliged to ensure the publication of appropriate amendments.
If there is a conflict of interest among members of the journal's editorial board as a result of competitive relations, cooperation or connections with one of the authors, the manuscript is submitted to an independent expert to resolve the conflict. Reviewers should not take part in the review and evaluation of manuscripts if there is a conflict of interest or personal interest.
When filing an ethical complaint regarding a submitted manuscript or published article, the editor-in-chief should take action based on the experience of reputable journals. Every report of unethical behavior must be reviewed without a statute of limitations. If the fact is confirmed, appropriate corrections, refutations or apologies should be published.