Editorial Policies

Aims and Scope

Key objectives of the journal “Consortium Psychiatricum” are as follows:

  • consolidation of scientific research, carried out by research teams in different countries;
  • covering a wide range of mental health issues, including clinical psychiatry, psychology, psychotherapy, mental disorders management, public mental health, epidemiology, basic research, interdisciplinary research and case reports;
  • increase in the scientific and practical qualification of researchers and specialists in psychiatry.

The scientific concept of the journal includes publication of cutting-edge research in psychiatry (both local and international practices).

The journal contains information on regional, all-Russian, international symposia, conferences, congresses on psychiatry and related sciences.

The journal welcomes original research articles, reviews, concepts, commentaries, short communication, comments and replies from both Russian and foreign researchers.




Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed


Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed


Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed


Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed


Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed

Special view

Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed


Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed


Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Unchecked Peer Reviewed


Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed


Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed


Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed

Peer Review Process

A double-blind peer review method is mandatory for processing of all scientific manuscripts submitted to the editorial staff of “Consortium Psychiatricum”. This implies that neither the reviewer is aware of the authorship of the manuscript, nor the author maintains any contact with the reviewer.

1. Members of the editorial board and leading Russian and international experts in corresponding areas of life sciences, invited as independent readers, perform peer reviews. Editor-in-chief, deputy editor-in-chief or science editor choose readers for peer review. We aim to limit the review process to 2–4 weeks, though in some cases the schedule may be adjusted at the reviewer’s request.

2. Peer review process is confidential. Reviewers are notified, that manuscripts received for review are authors’ intellectual property and not subject for disclosure. Reviewers are not allowed to make copies of manuscripts to be used for their own purposes. Violation of confidentiality is possible only in case of a statement of inaccuracy or falsification of materials. The author of a submitted manuscript is given the opportunity to read the review.

3. Reviewer has an option to abnegate the assessment should any conflict of interests arise that may affect perception or interpretation of the manuscript.

4. Upon the scrutiny, the reviewer is expected to present the editorial board with one of the following recommendations:

  • to accept the paper in its present state;
  • to invite the author to revise their manuscript to address specific concerns before final decision is reached;
  • that final decision be reached following further reviewing by another specialist;
  • to reject the manuscript outright.

5. If the reviewer has recommended any refinements, the editorial staff would suggest the author either to implement the corrections, or to dispute them reasonably. Authors are kindly required to limit their revision to 2 months and resubmit the adapted manuscript within this period for final evaluation.

6. We politely request that the editor be notified verbally or in writing should the author decide to refuse from publishing 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.

7. If author and reviewers meet insoluble contradictions regarding revision of the manuscript, the editorial board may send the manuscript for further reviewing. The editor-in-chief resolves conflicts by his own authority at the editorial board meeting.

8. The editorial board reaches final decision to reject a manuscript on the hearing according to reviewers’ recommendations, and duly notifies the authors of their decision via e‑mail. The board does not accept previously rejected manuscripts for re-evaluation.

9. Upon the decision to accept the manuscript for publishing, the editorial staff notifies the authors of the scheduled date of publication.

10. Kindly note that positive review does not guarantee the acceptance, as final decision in all cases lies with the editorial board. By his authority, the editor-in-chief rules final solution of every conflict.

11. Manuscripts are not accepted for publication if:

  • they do not meet the requirements for publication, and the authors refuse to implement technical refinements;
  • authors do not implement the corrections recommended by reviewers or dispute them reasonably.    

12. Reviews can be sent to the Ministry of Science and Higher Education of the Russian Federation when requested.


13. Original reviews of submitted manuscripts remain deposited for 5 years.


Publication Frequency

4 issues per year


Open Access Policy

"Consortium Psychiatricum" is an open access journal. All articles are made freely available to readers immediatly upon publication.

Our open access policy is in accordance with the Budapest Open Access Initiative (BOAI) definition - it means that articles have free availability 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 please read BOAI statement.




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.


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.

4.4. 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).



  • Kostyuk Georgy P.


Author fees

Publication in “Consortium Psychiatricum” is free of charge for all the authors.

The journal doesn’t have any article processing and submission charges.


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.


Borrowing and Plagiarism

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.

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.

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.


Preprint and postprint Policy

Prior to acceptance and publication in “Consortium Psychiatricum”, authors may make their submissions available as preprints on personal or public websites.

As part of the submission process, authors are required to confirm that the submission has not been previously published, nor has been submitted to another journal for publication. After a manuscript has been published in “Consortium Psychiatricum”, we suggest that the link to the article on journal’s website is used when the article is shared on personal or public websites.


Article Retraction

According to the rules of the Council on Ethics of Scientific Publications of Association of Science Editors and Publishers, the grounds for article retraction are:

  • detection of plagiarism in the article;
  • detection of falsifications (for example, manipulation of experimental data);
  • detection of serious errors that cast doubt on scientific value of the article;
  • incorrect list of authors;
  • duplication of the article in several journals;
  • republishing the article without the author’s consent;
  • concealment of conflict of interest and other violations of publication ethics;
  • the fact that the article hasn’t been peer reviewed.

After the decision to retract the article is made, the chief editor informs its authors, indicating the reason and date of retraction. The article remains on the journal’s site as part of the corresponding journal issue, but is marked “retracted” with the retraction date (the mark is placed on top of the text of the article and in the table of contents); in addition, a message about retraction is placed in the news section of the site, and the chief editor sends information about the article retraction to all online libraries and databases in which the journal is indexed.


Sources of Income and Advertising Policy

Sources of income: reprints, organizational support, advertising.

Advertising in the journal and the site is related to its content. Ads placed in no way affect editorial decisions.

For cooperation and advertising, contact the project manager.

This website uses cookies

You consent to our cookies if you continue to use our website.

About Cookies