Information For Librarians

The editorial board of the journal acts in accordance with the applicable guidelines and recommendations published by the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE), the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), the World Association of Medical Editors (WAME), and the Open Access Scholarly Publishers Association in collaboration with DOAJ, COPE, and WAME. These guidelines and recommendations define the mutual roles of all the participants in the publication process, i.e. the authors, editors and the editorial board, reviewers, and the publisher.

Editorial decisions about a manuscript are based on its importance, originality, clarity, and relevance to the journal's scope and content. The journal has an obligation to its readers and patients to ensure that the research published is accurate and that is adheres to the highest ethical standards.

The peer reviewing process plays an essential role in the editorial board's decisions and is indispensable in ensuring the professionality and quality of an article. The professional opinion of a peer reviewer helps an editor decide on the publication and provides the author with feedback.

Based on their objectivity and scientific knowledge, peer reviewers are carefully selected by editors to provide a written assessment of the strengths and weaknesses of a written research, to comment on any ethical concerns raised by the study, to provide the author with useful suggestions for improvement of the manuscript, and to identify and prevent research misconduct, including checking manuscripts for plagiarism, citation manipulation, and data falsification or fabrication. In the process of identifying and dealing with allegations of research misconduct, the journal, editors, and reviewers abide by COPE's guidelines.

The identities of the reviewer and the author remain undisclosed to each other throughout the review process.

All articles are peer reviewed confidentially by external, professional, courteous, prompt, and constructive experts in the scientific topic addressed. Reviewer anonymity allows for impartial decisions, as the reviewer cannot be influenced by the author. The review must be objective and the critical assessment clearly expressed and supported by arguments. Personal criticism toward the author is unpermissible.

Reviewers should identify the relevant published works that have not been cited by the author. Additionally, the reviewers should also call to the editor's attention any substantial similarity or overlap between the manuscript under consideration and any other published paper which they have personal knowledge of.

Unpublished materials disclosed in a submitted manuscript must not be used in the reviewers’ own research without an express written consent of the author. Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not used for personal advantage. Reviewers should not assess manuscripts in which they might have any conflicts of interest.

The author is obliged to review the improvements, take them into consideration to the largest extent possible, and amend the article within a deadline determined by the editors. Should the author fail to return the article within the set deadline, the article shall be rejected. If the author does not take into account any of the proposed improvements, they must provide the reasons for having done so in writing.

Upon the completion of the peer review process, the author is returned the manuscript with recommendations for improvements in order to check and approve the recommendations proposed and draw up a clean copy. The editors send the clean copy into proofreading.