《Doklady生物化学与生物物理学》是一本由俄语版《Doklady Akademii Nauk》生物化学与生物物理学部分发表的俄文文章英译而成的期刊。该杂志的目标是发表当今在俄罗斯或与俄罗斯作者合作进行的最重要的生物化学和生物物理学新研究。该杂志只接受俄罗斯科学院代理俄罗斯或外国成员提交或推荐的俄文文章。该杂志不接受英文的直接投稿。同行评审《Doklady生物化学与生物物理学》是一本同行评议期刊。我们使用开放/单盲/双盲同行评审格式。我们的审稿人团队包括超过160名审稿人，包括内部审稿人和外部审稿人(70%)。2017年从提交到首次评审的平均周期为3天，从首次评审到验收的平均周期为30天。2017年投稿退稿率为5%。接受发表文章的最终决定由编辑委员会作出。被邀请的审稿人因利益冲突，认为不符合审稿条件或者不能审稿的，应当及时通知审稿人，并予以拒绝。审稿人应以一种合理合理的方式清晰地阐述自己的观点，这样作者才能利用审稿人的观点来完善稿件。必须避免对作者的个人批评。评论者应该显示发表的一篇评论(我)任何相关的工作没有被引用的作者,(2)任何已报道在以前的出版物和没有适当的参考或引用,(2)任何实质性相似或重叠与其他手稿(发表或未发表)的个人知识。
https://www.springer.com/life+sciences/biochemistry+%26+biophysics/journal/10628
Doklady Biochemistry and Biophysics is a journal consisting of English translations of articles published in Russian in biochemistry and biophysics sections of the Russian-language journal Doklady Akademii Nauk. The journal's goal is to publish the most significant new research in biochemistry and biophysics carried out in Russia today or in collaboration with Russian authors. The journal accepts only articles in the Russian language that are submitted or recommended by acting Russian or foreign members of the Russian Academy of Sciences. The journal does not accept direct submissions in English.PEER REVIEWDoklady Biochemistry and Biophysics is a peer reviewed journal. We use open/single blind/double blind peer review formats. Our team of reviewers includes over 160 reviewers, both internal and external (70%). The average period from submission to first decision in 2017 was 3 days, and that from first decision to acceptance was 30 days. The rejection rate for submitted manuscripts in 2017 was 5%. The final decision on the acceptance of an article for publication is made by the Editorial Board.Any invited reviewer who feels unqualified or unable to review the manuscript due to the conflict of interests should promptly notify the editors and decline the invitation. Reviewers should formulate their statements clearly in a sound and reasoned way so that authors can use reviewer’s arguments to improve the manuscript. Personal criticism of the authors must be avoided. Reviewers should indicate in a review (i) any relevant published work that has not been cited by the authors, (ii) anything that has been reported in previous publications and not given appropriate reference or citation, (ii) any substantial similarity or overlap with any other manuscript (published or unpublished) of which they have personal knowledge.
