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). To achieve this, the first page and the acknowledgements page will be removed from 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.
What to consider when asked to peer review a manuscript?
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 Word.
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, but this does not mean those reviewers are automatically chosen. 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
Rules for accepting or rejecting a manuscript
Guidelines provided by the Ministry of Science and Higher Education
- At least two independent experts not affiliated with the department are chosen to review each submitted article
- In case of publications written in a foreign language, at least one of the experts has to be affiliated with a foreign institution from a different country than the author of the article.
- The recommended model of reviewing is a double-blind process, in which author(s) and reviewers do not know the identity of one another.
- If a double-blind process is inapplicable, the reviewer is obliged to sign a declaration confirming the lack of conflict of interests. Conflict of interests is understood as:
- direct personal relations (kinship, legal relations, conflict);
- professional subordination;
- direct scientific cooperation two years prior the preparation of the review.
- The review must be delivered in a written form and end with an unambiguous conclusion whether the article should be published or rejected.
- The rules of acceptance or rejection as well as the review form are displayed for all viewers on the website of the Publishing House or the journal or in each issue of the journal.
- The names of the reviewers of the particular publications/issues are not revealed. Once a year the journal makes the list of collaborating reviewers public.
Reviews must be prepared in accordance with the ethical guidelines for peer reviewers provided by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), which are available at https://publicationethics.org/resources/guidelines/cope-ethical-guidelines-peer-reviewers.
Manuscripts must comply with the guidelines of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), the World Association of Medical Editors (WAME) and the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICJME). Manuscripts not conforming to the principles of the World Medical Association (WMA) Declaration of Helsinki should not be accepted for publication.
Papers describing animal experiments can be accepted for publication only if the experiment conforms with the legal requirements binding in Poland as well as with the European Communities Council Directive 86/609/EEC as of November 24, 1986 or the National Research Council Committee for the Update of the Guide for the Care and Use of Laboratory Animals. Authors must provide a full description of the anesthetics and surgical procedures applied in their experiment.
All manuscripts must follow the international standards of reporting research, available at https://www.equator-network.org/.
Binding reporting standards:
CONSORT – for clinical trials
PRISMA 2020 – for systematic reviews and meta-analyses
(http://prisma-statement.org/PRISMAStatement/Checklist.aspx);
SQUIRE – for formal, planned studies, designed to assess the nature and effectiveness of interventions meant to improve the quality and safety of healthcare
(www.equator-network.org/reporting-guidelines/squire/);
STROBE – for observational studies in epidemiology
(https://www.equator-network.org/reporting-guidelines/strobe/);
ARRIVE – for in vivo animal research
(www.nc3rs.org.uk/arrive-guidelines);
MOOSE – for meta-analyses of observational studies
(www.elsevier.com/__data/promis_misc/ISSM_MOOSE_Checklist.pdf);
STARD – for diagnostic accuracy studies
(www.elsevier.com/__data/promis_misc/ISSM_STARD_Checklist.pdf);
STREGA – for gene–disease association studies
(www.equator-network.org/reporting-guidelines/strobe-strega/);
SPQR – for qualitative research
COREQ – for qualitative research
(www.mmcri.org/deptPages/core/downloads/QRIG/Standards_for_Reporting_Qualitative_Research___A_990451.pdf) and (cdn.elsevier.com/promis_misc/ISSM_COREQ_Checklist.pdf).
AI tools usage
Reviewers must not use generative AI tools to evaluate, draft, or write peer review reports. They must not upload the manuscript or any part of it to AI systems, as this may compromise confidentiality and the authors’ proprietary rights. Manuscripts submitted for peer review are confidential documents and must be treated as privileged communications.
Peer review requires independent expert judgment, critical appraisal, and full reviewer accountability. AI-generated or AI-assisted review text may introduce inaccuracies, artificial language, or recommendations that are not sufficiently justified by the manuscript itself.
Peer reviewer misconduct and manipulation
Instances of suspected peer review misconduct or manipulation (both by peer reviewers and by authors) will be investigated according to relevant COPE guidance concerning:
- peer review manipulation suspected during the peer review process
- peer review manipulation suspected after publication
- peer reviewer suspected to have appropriated an author's ideas or data.
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).