Aim and Scope

The Journal aims to publish the highest quality regional material, international research in the field of clinical cardiac electrophysiology and cardiac pacing. The Journal includes articles related to research findings, technical evaluations, reviews, surveys, position papers and guidelines. The Journal additionally considers editorial papers and hands-on articles.

Journal Sections

GUIDE TO PRACTITIONERS

Open Submissions

Indexed

Peer Reviewed

EXPERIMENTAL ARTICLE

Open Submissions

Indexed

Peer Reviewed

IMAGES

Open Submissions

Indexed

Peer Reviewed

REVIEW

Open Submissions

Indexed

Peer Reviewed

In Memoriam

Open Submissions

Indexed

Peer Reviewed

EDITORIAL

Open Submissions

Indexed

Peer Reviewed

INFORMATION LETTER

Open Submissions

Indexed

Peer Reviewed

CASE REPORTS

Open Submissions

Indexed

Peer Reviewed

ORIGINAL ARTICLE

Open Submissions

Indexed

Peer Reviewed

Publication Frequency

Four issues per year

Open Access Policy

This journal provides direct open access to its content, based on the following principle: free open access to research results contributes to an increase in global knowledge sharing.

Archiving

• Russian State Library (RSL)
• National Electronic-Information Consortium (NEICON)

Peer-Review

All materials submitted to the Journal of Arrhythmology undergo double-blind peer review. This implies that neither the reviewer is aware of the authorship of the manuscript, nor the author maintains any contact with the reviewer. Exclusions only made to Editorial papers, which are usually considered by the Editorial board only.
1. Members of the editorial board and leading Russian and international experts in corresponding areas of life sciences, invited as independent reviewers. Editor-in-chief, deputy editors, assistant editors, or international editorial board members select and invite reviewers. We aim to limit the review process to 2-4 weeks, though in some cases the schedule may be prolonged upon reviewer’s request.
2. Each manuscript is sent to at least 3 reviewers.
3. Reviews are drawn up in a standard form and include free text, main comments and additional comments. The review process ends with filling out a questionnaire, which includes questions regarding the relevance of
the manuscript, the presence of previous similar publications, the adequacy of the manuscript volume, the adequacy and quality of the illustrative material, the adequacy of the references. A reviewer has an option to abnegate the assessment should any conflict of interests arise that may affect perception or interpretation of the manuscript. A reviewer is expected to present the editorial board with one of the following recommendations:

- to accept the paper in its present state;
- to invited authors to revise their manuscript to address specific concerns;
- to reject the manuscript.
4. If a reviewer has recommended any changes, the editorial staff suggest implementing the corrections by authors, or expect a reasonable explanation from the authors why the suggestions cannot be implemented. Authors are kindly required to limit their revision time to 3 months and resubmit a revised manuscript within this period for further evaluation.
5. We politely request that the editor be notified verbally or in writing should the author decide to refuse from re-submitting the manuscript. In case the author fails to do so within 3 months since receiving a copy of the initial review, the editorial board takes the manuscript off the register and notifies the author accordingly.
6. If authors and reviewers meet insoluble contradictions regarding revision of the manuscript, the editor-in-chief resolves the conflict by his own authority.
7. The editorial board reserves the right to reject a manuscript according to reviewers’ recommendations, and notifies the authors on their decision via e-mail. The board does not accept previously rejected manuscripts for re-evaluation.
8. Upon the decision to accept the manuscript for publishing, the editorial staff notifies the authors about the decision.
9. Please note that a positive review does not guarantee the acceptance, as the final decision in all cases depends on many aspects, including the novelty, importance of the work, and space limits. By their authorities, the editors-in-chief rule final solution of every conflict.
10. Original reviews of submitted manuscripts remain deposited for 5 years.

Indexation

Articles in "Journal of Arrhythmology" are indexed by several systems:

• Russian Index for Science Citation (RISC) – a database, accumulating information on papers by Russian scientists, published in native and foreign titles. The RSCI project is under development since 2005 by “Electronic Scientific Library” foundation (elibrary.ru).
• Google Scholar is a freely accessible web search engine that indexes the full text of scholarly literature across an array of publishing formats and disciplines. The Google Scholar index includes most peer-reviewed online journals of Europe and America's largest scholarly publishers, plus scholarly books and other non-peer reviewed journals.
• Dimensions
• NLM Catalog
• RNMJ.RU
• Scopus
• WorldCat
• DOAJ

Publishing Ethics

The Publication Ethics and Publication Malpractice Statement of the Journal of Arrhythmology are based on the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) Code of Conduct guidelines available at www.publicationethics.org, and requirements for peer-reviewed medical journals (health.elsevier.ru/attachments/editor/file/ethical_code_final.pdf), elaborated by the "Elsevier" Publishing House (in accordance with international ethical rules of scientific publications).

 
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: "Journal of Arrhythmology";

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 very 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 Editors of the "Journal of Arrhythmology" are 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 (for society-owned or sponsored journals). The validation of a submitted work implements the consideration of its importance to readers. The Editors may be guided by the policies of the "Journal of Arrhythmology" journal’s editorial board and constrained by such legal requirements as shall then be in force
regarding libel, copyright infringement and plagiarism. The editors may confer with other editors or reviewers (or society officers) in making this decision.
2.2. Fair play – An editor should evaluate manuscripts for their intellectual content without regard to race, gender, sexual orientation, religious belief, ethnic origin, citizenship, or political philosophy of the authors.
2.3. Confidentiality – The editors and any editorial staff of "Journal of Arrhythmology" 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, 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 assists the editors in making editorial decisions and through the editorial communications with the author may also assist the author in improving the paper. Peer review is an essential
component of formal scholarly communication, and lies at the heart of the scientific methods. 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 "Journal of Arrhythmology" and exclude
himself from the review process.
3.3. Confidentiality – Any manuscript received for review must be treated as a confidential document. They must not be shown to or discussed with others except as authorized 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 work that has not been cited by the authors. Any statement that an observation, derivation, or argument had been 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.
3.5.1. Compliance with the ethics standards of re-using figures/tables. If a figure and/or table is re-used from a previous publication, including those from previous publications of the authors, a permission from the publisher of the
original publication must be obtained. The re-usage of figures/tables should be stated, and a link to the original source must be provided. When submitting an article to the Journal of Arrhythmology, a copy of the publisher’s permission should be attached as a separate file. The only exception is the re-use of figures/tables from "open access" publications; in this case, this fact should be reflected in the cover letter. An appropriate reference should be provided. Compliance with the ethics standards of re-using figures/tables is the responsibility of the authors. In case of non-compliance with these rules, the editorial board reserves the right to refuse to consider the submission and refuse
to publish the article.

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 papers 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. The authors should ensure that they have written entirely original works, and if the authors 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.
4.4. Multiple, Redundant or Concurrent Publication
4.4.1. An author should not in general 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. In general, an author should not submit for consideration in another journal a previously published paper.
4.4.3. Publication of some kinds of articles (eg, clinical guidelines, translations) in more than one journal is sometimes justifiable, provided certain conditions are met. The authors and editors of the journal must agree to the secondary publication, which may reflect the same data and interpretation of the primary document. The primary reference must be cited in the secondary publication. Further detail 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) have 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 "Journal of Arrhythmology" journal and cooperate with 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 (and if relevant, Society)
5.1. Publisher should adopt policies and procedures that support editors, reviewers and authors of "Journal of Arrhythmology" 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 "Journal of Arrhythmology" journal 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. 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 (health.elsevier.ru/attachments/editor/file/ethical_code_final.pdf) of Elsevier publisher (https://www.elsevier.com) and files (http://publicationethics.org/resources) from Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE - http://publicationethics.org).

6. Advertising policy
Advertising content does not affect the decision-making of the editorial board and is placed separately from scientific content.

Founder

•  “Almazov National Medical Research Centre” of the Ministry of Health of the
  Russian Federation, Saint-Petersburg

•  NP Saint-Petersburg Society of Cardiologists

Author fees

The Journal of Arrhythmology announces article processing charges (APC) for materials submitted after December 31, 2023 that have financial support (as indicated within the manuscript and/or in the covering letter, and includes grant, government assignment, commercial sponsoring, and other funding and support types.

Manuscripts with an indication “no funding received” will be processed without payment.

APC will be charged after acceptance of the manuscript following review process and approval of the article by the editorial board.

For issuing an invoice, authors will need to provide the full institution name and bank details.

APC fee is 25,000 rubles.

Disclosure and Conflict of Interest

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.

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.

Plagiarism detection

"Journal of Arrhythmology" use native russian-language plagiarism detection software Antiplagiat to screen the submissions. The entry threshold for an article must be greater than 75% in order for the article to be submitted for external review.

Preprint and postprint Policy

Prior to acceptance and publication in "Journal of Arrhythmology" authors may make their submissions available as preprints on personal or public websites.
As part of submission process, authors are required to confirm that the submission has not been previously published, nor has been submitted. After a manuscript has been published in "Journal of Arrhythmology" we suggest that
the link to the article on journal's website is used when the article is shared on personal or public websites.

Glossary (by SHERPA)

Preprint - In the context of Open Access, a preprint is a draft of an academic article or other publication before it has been submitted for peer-review or other quality assurance procedure as part of the publication process. Preprints cover
initial and successive drafts of articles, working papers or draft conference papers.

Postprint - The final version of an academic article or other publication - after it has been peer-reviewed and revised into its final form by the author. As a general term this covers both the author's final version and the version as published, with formatting and copy-editing changes in place.