Review policy
The reviewing process
All manuscripts will be subject to anonymous editorial review (the authors' names and affiliations will be disclosed to the reviewers only when the review process is complete). In order to achieve this, the first page and the acknowledgements page will be removed from the manuscripts sent to reviewers. Manuscripts will be sent to at least 2 independent reviewers. The Editorial Board decides to accept the manuscript; reviews only support this decision. Adv Clin Exp Med follows the COPE guidelines for peer reviewers.
In their response to peer reviewers and statistical reviewers, the Authors should provide a point-by-point response to reviewers' comments and a version of their paper with all changes marked with blue color of the modified text or yellow/blue highlighting of such passages. Moreover, the “track changes” function should be used in the Word software.
The paramount rule is that all peer reviews should only be sent to section editors via the Editorial System. Reviews provided by e-mail will not be registered in the Editorial System. The editors cannot upload a review sent via e-mail into the Editorial System since the format provided by other means of communication may be incompatible with the format in the Editorial System.
Two independent external reviewers review each manuscript. Reviews are based on the so-called double-blind review policy. Editors ask the Authors to identify at least 2 reviewers, which does not mean those reviewers are an automatic choice. The names of reviewers of each publication are not disclosed. The manuscript is qualified for printing after obtaining 2 positive reviews. In case of 1 negative review, the Editorial Board reserves the right to reject the manuscript. The list of reviewers is posted on the Journal’s website once a year (in the last issue).
In-house submissions, i.e., papers authored by Editors, Section Editors or Editorial Board members of Adv Clin Exp Med, will be sent to Editors unaffiliated with the author or institution and monitored carefully to ensure no peer review bias.
Detailed technical guidelines for peer reviewers
Detailed ethical guidelines for peer reviewers
SUBMIT REVIEW
AI tools usage
Reviewers may not use AI technology to generate or write their reviews because doing so could breach the confidentiality of the manuscript. Reviewers should not upload submitted manuscripts into AI systems where confidentiality cannot be assured. Manuscripts submitted to journals are privileged communications and that uploading of the manuscript to software or other AI technologies where confidentiality cannot be assured is prohibited.
Web of Science Reviewer Locator
Section Editors of Advances in Clinical and Experimental Medicine utilize Web of Science Reviewer Locator – a service provided by Clarivate Analytics – to find and choose the best reviewers. The tool also automatically confirms to Publons that a particular reviewer has performed the review.
Special incentives for our Reviewers!
Since January 1, 2021, our Reviewers receive 5 points for each review prepared for our journal.
A total of 20 points allows them to publish an article in Advances in Clinical and Experimental Medicine free of charge, provided that they are the first or the last author of a given article.
Since July 1, 2024, the points are valid for 2 years (24 months) counting from the day a paper authored by our reviewer is initially accepted for publication and a requirement for paying an article-processing charge (APC) appears (e.g., when the paper was initially accepted on July 1, 2024, 20 points must have been amassed within the previous 24 months, that is, from July 1, 2022, to June 30, 2024).
If an author knows or supposes that they are eligible for an APC waiver, they should contact the Managing Editor: marek.misiak@umw.edu.pl [alternative e-mail for Chinese authors: marek.misiak@friend.pl] – the Editorial System does not always remind editors about such eligibility.
Suggested peer reviewers
Authors of each submitted manuscript are required to suggest 3 potential peer reviewers. Fulfilling this requirement is paramount to alleviating the peer-review crisis in scientific publishing and is mandatory.
Suggested reviewer has to be:
- from a different country than any of the authors;
- a specialist in a relevant field of medicine (There have been instances where the recommended reviewers were from completely unrelated scientific fields, sometimes not even within medicine.).
Please provide the following information concerning the suggested reviewers:
- name;
- institutional e-mail;
- link to the reviewer's institutional personal page (if possible).
This would facilitate proper identification and traceability to their professional profile and respective institutions.
The suggested reviewers cannot have a conflict of interest. Examples of conflicts of interest include, but are not limited to:
- Having a relationship to the author(s) of the work, either personally or professionally. This includes previous research or lab group members, or co-authors.
- Finding that a manuscript or book proposal that you have been asked to review is very similar to one the peer reviewer has in preparation or under consideration with a journal or publisher.
- Having a direct or indirect financial interest in the result of the review.
- Having a direct or indirect non-financial interest in the result of the review (e.g., if the paper contradicts something the peer reviewer has a well-known public stance on).