Review policy
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 when a paper authored by our reviewer is initially accepted for publication and a requirement for paying article-processing charge (APC) appears (e.g., when the paper was initially accepted on July 1, 2024, 20 points must have been amassed within previous 24 months, that is from July 1, 2022, to June 30, 2024).
If an author knows or supposes that they are eligible for 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 not always reminds 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 is 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 institutional personal page of the reviewer (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 as described here:
https://www.journals.elsevier.com/journal-of-systems-and-software/policies/conflict-of-interest-guidelines-for-reviewers
The reviewing process
All manuscripts will be subject to a process of anonymous editorial review (the name of authors and their 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 final decision on accepting the manuscript is made by the Editorial Board; reviews are only supporting this decision. The Editorial Board’s final evaluation of each article is based on criteria developed by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).
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 your paper with all changes marked with red color of the modified text or red highlighting of such passages. Moreover, the “track changes” function in the Word software should be used.
The paramount rule is that all peer reviews should be sent to section editors only via the Editorial System. Reviews provided by e-mail will not be registered in the Editorial System and will count neither to the number of reviews a given manuscript received nor to the number of peer reviews a given reviewer performed. The editors cannot upload a review sent via e-mail into the Editorial System since the format of the review provided by other means of communication may be incompatible with the form in the Editorial System.
Each manuscript is reviewed by 2 independent external reviewers. 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, however, their 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 or Editorial Board members of the title, will be sent to Editors unaffiliated with the author or institution and monitored carefully to ensure there is no peer review bias.
Detailed technical guidelines for peer reviewers
Detailed ethical guidelines for peer reviewers
AI tools usage
Reviewers may not use AI technology in generating or writing their reviews because this could breach the confidentiality of the manuscript.
Web of Science Rewiever 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 it automatically sends a confirmation to Publons that a particular reviewer has performed the review.
