Peer review

PEER REVIEW POLICY

All submitted papers are assessed by two independent experts in the field. The reviewers are asked to judge the validity, significance, and originality of submitted research and to ensure that the research has followed relevant good practice guidelines. The editorial and publication process follow the guidelines of the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE), World Association of Medical Editors (WAME), Council of Science Editors (CSE), and COPE International Standards for Editors and Authors Guidelines (http://publicationethics.org). Reviewers are expected to respond in 3 weeks so that the article can be reviewed in time. If a reviewer appears to be unable to submit a report after some time, the Editor-in-Chief may decide that the Deputy Editor or Associate Editors should provide his/her view on the article in a brief report, which is submitted to the Editor-in-Chief.

Acta Biomed  uses a single-blind for peer reviewing. Substantially, the reviewers know the authors’ names and backgrounds, but authors don’t know those of the reviewers.

Authors are welcome to suggest 2 suitable reviewers, who are located in different countries/regions from the author group, when they submit their manuscript by providing in the covering letter their names, institutions and e-mail addresses. When suggesting reviewers, authors should make sure they have a high degree of expertise and independence in the field of the study presented. Furthermore, authors should not recommend recent collaborators or colleagues with whom have published papers in the last 3 years. Please note that suggestions are welcome and may speed up the peer review process but the journal cannot guarantee to use them.

Reviewers' Conflicts of Interest and Confidentiality

- Peer Reviewers must disclose any conflicts of interest that could bias opinions of the manuscript and should recuse themselves from reviewing specific manuscripts if the potential for bias exists.
- Invited Reviewers may request a deadline extension as soon as possible in case more time is required to provide a comprehensive report.
- Manuscripts sent for review are privileged communications and are the private property of the authors. Therefore, reviewers must respect the author’s rights by not publicly discussing the author’s work or appropriating their ideas before the manuscript is published.
- Reviewers will be asked to check the statistical methods, and the manuscript may be sent for specialist statistical review if considered necessary.
- Reviews should be conducted objectively and  Referees should express their views clearly with supporting arguments. Derogatory comments will not be tolerated. Reviewers are asked also to evaluate the quality of the manuscript and to provide a recommendation to the Editor-in-Chief on whether the manuscript should be accepted, requires revisions, or should be rejected.
- Reviewers should identify relevant published work that has not been cited by the authors. 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.
- Until the article is published, Reviewers should keep the content of the manuscript, including the Abstract, confidential. Reviewers should also be careful not to reveal their identity to the authors, either in their comments.
- Additional comments can be reported separately to the Editor-in Chief on the scientific content of the manuscript:  areas of weakness, methodological inaccuracies, relevance of the review topic, and rating of manuscript.
- Peer review reports are sent to authors along with the editorial decision on their manuscript.
- Reviewers must not make copies of the manuscript and are prohibited from sharing them with others.
- Reviewers should return or destroy copies of manuscripts after submitting reviews.

The reviewers' identity remains anonymous. If different evaluation is reported by the reviewers (positive-negative), the Editor-in-Chief may invite an additional reviewer for an extra opinion before making a decision.

 

Decision after review

Editors will usually consider the peer-reviewed reports when making a decision. The reviewed articles will normally be accepted for publication by at least two reviewers’ acceptance.

After considering the reviewer reports the editor will make one of the following decisions:

- Accepted
- Request for minor revision, where authors revise their article to address specific concern
- Request for major revision, where authors revise their article to address significant concerns and perhaps undertake additional work.
- Rejected, typically on grounds of specialist interest, lack of novelty, insufficient conceptual advance or major technical and/or interpretational problems.

However, in some circumstances, if the opinions or recommendations are not bound the Editor before rejecting the paper may require a third reviewer opinion.  Authors will receive peer review reports with the editorial decision on their manuscript.

Revision/ Correction

The Editor-in-Chief sends the  decision by email to the corresponding author including any relevant reviewer comments.  In cases where the editor has requested changes to the article, authors will be invited to prepare a revision. The decision e-mail specifies a deadline for submission of a revised article. Once resubmitted, the article may be sent back by Editor-in-Chief to the original reviewers.

A revised article should be submitted via the revision link provided in the decision letter, and not as a new article. The revision should also be accompanied by a point-by-point response to referees explaining how the article has been changed. 

Final Submission and Acceptance

When all editorial issues are resolved,  the paper is  formally accepted for publication. The Editors notify the acceptance decision to the authors.

Before final publication, the corresponding author will be invited by the Publisher to make the final check of manuscript. Only minor changes or scientific errors are permitted. All corrections must be approved by the publishing team.

Changes of authorship by adding or deleting authors, and/or changes in Corresponding Author, and/or changes in the sequence of authors are not accepted during and after the acceptance of manuscript.

Peer reviewers are experts who volunteer offer their time to improve the manuscripts they review and to help the Editor-in-Chief to determine whether the manuscript should be published in ActaBiomed. The names of referees will not be made available to authors.

 

Statements related to publication process for supplement

If a Guest Editor is contemplating a special issue proposal, after the presentation to Editor-in-Chief and his approval, is responsible to identify papers and authors for possible inclusion in the special issue that will follow the same strict and rigorous ethical principles and review process of regular journal issues.

The Guest Editor should be an expert in the field and is responsible for the supplement contents. If poor adherence to the guidelines of ActaBiomed or unethical practices are detected by the Editor-in-Chief the supplement will be cancelled. The principles of authorship and disclosure of potential conflicts of interest are applied to supplements as regular journal issue.

The sources of funding for the research and publication, must be approved by the Editor-in-Chief and clearly reported in the supplement index of contents. Personal remuneration from sponsors of supplements to the Guest Editor(s) of ActaBioned are not permitted.

 

PEER REVIEW GUIDANCE

After the Editor-in-Chief invitation, to review a submitted paper, the reviewer should consider the following aspects:

  • If there is only one section of the manuscript that you are unfamiliar with, it may be the case for asking to the Editor-in-Chief that other reviewers have the required expertise in this section. the support of an Expert for statistical evaluation, epidemiology data, animal studies etc.).
  • If you have not time to review the manuscript, let us know promptly and if possible suggest alternative reviewers.
  • If you have a potential conflicts of interest please let us know promptly so that we can find an alternative reviewer

Before sending your review to the Editor-in Chief please rate the following aspects:

  • Novelty: If this is a research manuscript, is the research question important? What value does it add to the scientific literature? If the conclusions are not original, please provide the relevant references. If a review article, does the manuscript offer any new perspectives? Subjectively speaking, would this manuscript be of interest to people of your own discipline and/or other medical disciplines?
  • Quality: Do Title and Abstract reflect the content of the manuscript? Does Introduction describe what the author hopes to achieve? It should summarise the relevant current research and literature to provide context.
  • Scientific Soundness:  Is the study appropriately designed to investigate the research question? What, in your opinion, are the strengths of the manuscript?  Is there anything that you would suggest that could improve the organization of the manuscript and the information flow?
  • Are any statistical tests used appropriate? Are probability values accurately described? Are the claims supported by the results or literature reviewed? Does the manuscript/author support or contradict previous theories? Are the claims in the discussion supported by the results? Have the authors discussed any limitations to their manuscript. Are they appropriate to the manuscript. Is the meaning of any tables/figures clear? Are they correctly labelled. Are they all necessary? Would additional ones be useful. What, in your opinion, are the limitations of the manuscript?
  • Interest to the Readers: Are the conclusions interesting for the readership of the journal? Will the paper attract a wide readership, or be of interest only to a limited number of people?
  • Overall Merit: Is there an overall benefit to publishing this work? Does the work advance the current knowledge?
  • English Level: Is the English language appropriate and understandable?

We  kindly ask to peer reviewers to comment fully on all aspects of the manuscript for helping the Editor-in-Chief to make the final decision.

  1. If you believe the manuscript should be rejected or requires substantial revision, it is important to motivate the relevant criticisms. Please note that you are not required to correct style, grammar or spelling as this will be done if the manuscript is accepted, but any help you can give in clarifying the meaning is appreciated.
  2. Feedback should be constructive to the author. For instance, if you are suggesting a significant modification, please note the reasons why and provide supporting references.
  3. Please be clear about which aspects of your review are your opinion and which are based on the scientific literature. Note that as a peer reviewer, you are aiming to comment on the quality and rigour of the work received. If you are suggesting additions, please specify which are necessary/essential to support the claims of the manuscript under review and which simply represent a suggest for future further work
  4. Peer reviewers can provide confidential comments to the Editor- in- Chief in addition to their comments to the authors. Any suspect of plagiarism should be mentioned to the Editor- in Chief. We use eTBLAST, CrossCheck, and Wcopyfind softwares and deal with suspicious manuscripts following COPE flowcharts (http://publicationethics.org/resources/ flowcharts).

Reviewers' Conflicts of Interest and Confidentiality

  1. Peer Reviewers must disclose any conflicts of interest that could bias opinions of the manuscript and should recuse themselves from reviewing specific manuscripts if the potential for bias exists.
  2. Manuscripts sent for review are privileged communications and are the private property of the authors. Therefore, reviewers must respect the author’s rights by not publicly discussing the author’s work or appropriating their ideas before the manuscript is published.
  3. Reviewers must not make copies of the manuscript and are prohibited from sharing them with others.
  4. Reviewers should return or destroy copies of manuscripts after submitting reviews.

 

 

(Last update version: 16 May 2023)