About the Journal

Focus and Scope
Article types
Research Areas
Benefits to authors
Open Access Policy
Section Policies
Peer Review Process
Publication Frequency
Journal Fees
Journal Financing
Plagiarism Policy
Ethical Policy
Duties and responsibilities of the authors
Duties and responsibilities of the journal reviewers
Duties and responsibilities of the journal editors

FOCUS AND SCOPE
Scripta Scientifica Medica is a quarterly journal publishing open access articles aimed at providing the most current information in various medical fields.

ARTICLE TYPES
Reviews, Original Articles, Case Reports, Short Research Communication, Scientific Letters, Letters to the Editor, Editorial Comment, Clinical Trials and Others.

RESEARCH AREAS
Various areas of preclinical and clinical medicine, public health medicine, and psychology.

BENEFITS TO AUTHORS
Scripta Scientifica Medica provides many author benefits, such as open access publication with a liberal copyright and posting policy, free-of-charge manuscript submission and publishing, professional proofreading and pre-print, support to submitting authors, transparent peer review process.

OPEN ACCESS POLICY
SSM practices an open access policy in regard to its content based on the principle of making all research freely available to the public as this would contribute greatly to a better global exchange of knowledge.
The Open Access Policy is based on rules of Budapest Open Access Initiative (https://www.budapestopenaccessinitiative.org/read/).
Scripta Scientifica Medica applies the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY 4.0) License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/legalcode.en). If you submit your paper for publication, you agree to have the CC-BY 4.0 license applied to your work. Under this Open Access license, the work is protected by copyright and/or other applicable law. Any use of the work other than as authorized under this license or copyright law is prohibited.
Upon submission for publishing the corresponding author must note in the Check list that is agree with the Terms and Conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution License 4.0 (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/legalcode.en).

SECTION POLICIES

Editorials

 Open Submissions  Indexed  Peer Reviewed

Reviews

 Open Submissions  Indexed  Peer Reviewed

Original Articles

 Open Submissions  Indexed  Peer Reviewed

Case Reports

 Open Submissions  Indexed  Peer Reviewed

Letters to the Editor

 Open Submissions  Indexed  Peer Reviewed

PEER REVIEW PROCESS
Our journal uses the double-blind review method.
The double-blind review process aims to provide anonymity for both the author and the reviewer. The reviewer is not given any information regarding the author or the institution issuing the submitted manuscript. All personal information must be entered only in the provided metadata fields. This means that it is the author's responsibility to delete any information from the text file of the submission that might, in any way, reveal the identity of the submitter such as any names, contact information and affiliations. The reviewers receive only the text file of the manuscript and the supplementary files.
After being assigned to an article, the reviewers receive an email notifying them with an included title and abstract of the article accompanied by a link to the online platform where they can see the allowed metadata and references. The purpose is for the reviewers to become acquainted with the topic of the submission and whether the field is relevant to their own after which they can decide to accept or decline to review the article using the relevant buttons, thus sending a message informing the Section Editor of this. Upon agreeing the reviewers gain access to the file with the full-text article, the supplementary files, and the reviewer's questionnaire, where they are to answer a number of questions related to the article. At the end of the questionnaire the reviewers must include recommendations—one visible to the Editor and author, and the other to the Editor only. The last step includes a drop-down menu where the reviewers choose from a list of available options as their final decision.

PUBLICATION FREQUENCY
Scripta Scientifica Medica is a quarterly journal with issues being published in March, June, September, and December.

JOURNAL FEES
Scripta Scientifica Medica does not charge any fees for manuscript submission, processing and publication, nor does it charge readers for access to articles available on its website.

JOURNAL FINANCING
Scripta Scientifica Medica is entirely financed by the Medical University of Varna, Bulgaria.

PLAGIARISM POLICY
Scripta Scientifica Medica does not condone plagiarism of any type, including: presenting large portions of text in their original form, authored by someone else, as one's own; a compilation of different sources without any significant contribution by the author; including large portions of text, without any change, from the author's previous articles. All sources and quotations must be cited and marked accurately. All submissions are run through a plagiarism software (StrikePlagiarism, iThenticate) prior to being sent to a Section Editor for consideration. In case of higher than the admissible percentage of similarity, the article is sent back to the authors for a revision.

ETHICAL POLICY
The publications of the journals of the Medical University of Varna are based on ethical principles, established in internationally recognized requirements and standards of good publication practice of a number of scientific organizations and international committees: Committee on Publication Ethics (https://publicationethics.org/); International Committee of Medical Journal Editors, ICMJE (https://www.icmje.org/); Council of International Organizations for Medical Sciences, CIOMS (https://cioms.ch/); World Association of Medical Editors, WAME (https://www.wame.org/); World Medical Association, WMA (https://www.wma.net/), etc. 
The Journal adheres to the ethical principles and requirements of manuscripts, proposed for publication to scientific journals, established in the following internationally adopted documents:

The ethical standards of publication in the titles published by Medical University of Varna are adopted by the Committee on Research Ethics at the Medical University of Varna. The ethical principles are generally focused on the duties and responsibilities of the published authors, the journal editors and the reviewers of the proposed manuscripts.
An approval of the research by an ethics committee in accordance with international agreements, “World Medical Association Declaration of Helsinki – Ethical Principles for Medical Research Involving Human Subjects (https://www.wma.net/policies-post/wma-declaration-of-helsinki/)”, "Guide for the care and use of laboratory animals (https://grants.nih.gov/grants/olaw/guide-for-the-care-and-use-of-laboratory-animals.pdf)", and “International Guiding Principles for Biomedical Research Involving Animals (https://grants.nih.gov/grants/olaw/guiding_principles_2012.pdf)”, is required. Authors will be asked to provide ethical approval in order to proceed to the review process. If they cannot provide ethical approval, their manuscript will be rejected and also their institutions will be informed that such studies must have ethics committee approval. If they provide approval, review of the manuscript will continue. For articles concerning research on humans, a statement should be included that shows that informed consent of participants in the study was obtained. Informed consent must also be obtained for case reports and clinical images. The Journal may request a copy of the ethics committee approval. 
Conflict of interest
The editorial review process of Scripta Scientifica Medica is in accordance with the International guidelines for Good Editorial Practice (ICMJE, EASE, WAME, COPE, CSE). WAME indicates that “conflict of interest exists when an author, reviewer, or editor in the publication process (submission of manuscripts, peer review, editorial decisions, and communication between authors, reviewers and editors) has a competing interest that could unduly influence his or her responsibilities (academic honesty, unbiased conduct and reporting of research, and integrity of decisions or judgments) in the publication process” (https://www.wame.org/conflict-of-interest-in-peer-reviewed-medical-journals).
Scripta Scientifica Medica requires that each author, reviewer, and editor must disclose to the Editor-in-Chief any conflict of interest related to family, personal, financial, political, or religious issues as well as any competing interest outlined above at the WAME’s definition.

DUTIES AND RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE AUTHORS
Authorship
All authors should meet the ICMJE’s authorship criteria (https://www.icmje.org/recommendations/browse/roles-and-responsibilities/defining-the-role-of-authors-and-contributors.html).
Authors should meet the following criteria:

  • Substantial contributions to the conception or design of the work; or the acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data for the work; AND
  • Drafting the work or reviewing it critically for important intellectual content; AND
  • Final approval of the version to be published; AND
  • Agreement to be accountable for all aspects of the work in ensuring that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work are appropriately investigated and resolved.

Attribution of co-authorship to a person without any real creative participation (intrusive or “honorary” authorship) is serious violations of the author’s best practice. People who render only organizational, technical, financial, methodological help, or any other help or assistance but they do not participate in the actual process of creation are not co-authors. The support of other individuals as well as members of the management of the scientific organization is noted in a remark expressing gratitude, but they are not included in the list of co-authors. It is unethical for a person who has sponsored the publication of scientific work to claim authorship without participation throughout the actual process of creation.
The order of authors in the manuscript is decided and determined together by the entire author team at the very beginning of the study and before submission. In joint research it is ethical to determine the actual contribution of each researcher according to the work performed.
It is not allowed for unpublished materials of the team to be presented as personal research without the consent of the other members of the team.
Authors are responsible for the content of the publications as well as for the personal contribution of the included co-authors.
Authors should appoint a corresponding author to communicate with the Journal during the editorial process. The corresponding author has to ensure the inclusion of all co-authors and contributors to the manuscript. He/she has to ensure that the co-authors have adopted the final version of the article and have agreed with its submission for publication. The corresponding author marks in the Submission Checklist that the study has been approved by a committee on research ethics.
Changes to Authorship
No changes to authorship, such as a change in the order of the authors or the deletion or addition of author names, are allowed once a manuscript has been submitted. It is important that authors carefully consider the authorship list and order of authors and provide a definitive author list at original submission.
Requirements of Objectivity and Truth
The authors of a publication have to present the accomplished work on the research, the actual results and their objective discussion accurately, reliably and objectively. Any kind of modification, omission and/or intentional misinterpretation of the data, falsification and fabrication, is ethically unacceptable. Any manipulation of the results and intentional publication of incorrect conclusions in order to support or prove the author’s thesis is inadmissible.
Originality, Plagiarism, Citation
Authors have to ensure that the original publication proposed for publishing has been developed by them. It should contain sufficient detailed description of the experimental part, as well as citations related to it and allowing its full reproduction. Plagiarism in any kind of form (misuse of a name, copying or paraphrase) of which authors bear personal responsibility is inadmissible, unethical and unacceptable. In case of using results or a text taken from of other authors’ publications, they have to be cited accurately and properly.
While using someone else’s unpublished data, the author has to have requested (and have been granted) a written permission by the author of the study or/and the copyright holder of the respective result. If the permission is obtained, the citation has to be specific. Information obtained in an informal way, in conversations, by correspondence, discussions, as well as information obtained in the course of confidential activities (reviewing articles, applications for project funding), is impermissible to be used or reported without explicit written permission.
Data Sharing Policy 

Research data refers to the results of observations or experimentation that validate research findings, which may also include software, code, raw or processed data files, models, algorithms, protocols, methods and other useful materials. Sharing data provides many benefits for authors such as more citations, new collaborations, access and transparency to research, new insights, etc. https://authorservices.taylorandfrancis.com/data-sharing/share-your-data/data-sharing-in-journals-with-double-anonymized-peer-review/.

Authors should provide access to the primary original data when they are requested by the Editorial Board of the Journal. Authors should include a generalized data availability statement (DAS) when the data will be available on request, but not include the details of the specific author or their contact details in the anonymized version of the manuscript.

For clinical trials, according to ICMJE, “a condition of consideration for publication is a registration of clinical trials in a public trials registry at or before the time of first patient enrolment and the manuscripts that report the results of clinical trials must contain a data sharing statement” (https://www.icmje.org/recommendations/browse/publishing-and-editorial-issues/clinical-trial-registration.html). Scripta Scientifica Medica require authors to submit a data-sharing statement and register a data-sharing plan when registering a clinical trial on or after Jan 1, 2019.

Multiple and Simultaneous Publication
It is contrary to the ethical principles to submit a manuscript that has already been published in another journal or it has been submitted for a review awaiting a decision on its publication. It is inadmissible to submit materials which replicate extracts of already published articles or the unnecessary ‘fragmentation’ of publications. Authors declare that the research materials have not been published before in a written or electronic form, they have not been proposed and will not be offered for publication to another journal during their consideration in an edition of Medical University – Varna until the final decision on publication of the Editorial board.
Acknowledgement, Funding, and Sponsorship
It is in accordance with the ethical principles of publication to express gratitude to the rest of the participants in the study for their assistance, to people who have intellectual contribution or have rendered technical, organizational, material or financial assistance. All the people who have contributed to the development of the material but do not meet the criteria for authorship should be mentioned in the acknowledgements paragraph. Acknowledgement is expressed to colleagues, reviewers, and editors for valuable suggestions or provided real help for the improvement of the work. Special gratitude is due to colleagues who have presented the author with results of their own published or unpublished studies.
All sources of funding have to be declared as an acknowledgement at the end of the text. It is obligatory to mention the projects and grants which have provided funding for the research. Authors should declare the role of the sponsors in the study.
Withdrawal Policy
Manuscripts may be withdrawn before the first round of review by submitting a written request to the Editorial Office, signed by all authors, and mentioning the reason for withdrawal. After receiving the request, the Editorial Board will consider the reasons of withdrawal. In case of an acceptable reason, the author is allowed to withdraw the manuscript. When the reason is not well explained or acceptable, the Journal will not accept any manuscripts from the same author for the next 12 months. When a manuscript has taken more than 4 months to complete the first round of review, the authors are allowed to withdraw the manuscript. Authors must not assume that their manuscript has been withdrawn until they have received appropriate notification from the Editorial Office.
Copyright
The copyright of all open access publications has to be in compliance with the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 public license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/legalcode.en).
Ethical Aspects of Research on Humans and Experimental Animals 
The presented materials and the research described in them have to conform to the ethical standards of human studies and experiments with laboratory animals. Reports on the results of experimental studies involving humans or animals must contain a written confirmation that the requirements of the relevant official documents in this area are strictly followed.
The publication of research involving human subjects requires confirmation that the study has been approved by the relevant committee on research ethics of the institution in which it is conducted and that the participants in the study have given their written informed consent to be included in it. Participants’ names, initials, photos, or any other information, which can identify them, should not be mentioned.
All animal experiments should comply with ARRIVE (Animal Research: Reporting of In Vivo Experiments) guidelines (https://arriveguidelines.org/arrive-guidelines).
Studies should be carried out in accordance with Guidance on the operation of the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 (https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/66e0233ab1a8879e443282a0/Guidance_on_the_operation_of_ASPA_-_December_2023.pdf_); EU Directive 2010/63 for the protection of animals used for scientific purposes (https://www.eumonitor.eu/9353000/1/j4nvk6yhcbpeywk_j9vvik7m1c3gyxp/vitgbgivrezz); the NIH (National Research Council) Guide for the Care and Use of Laboratory Animals (https://grants.nih.gov/grants/olaw/guide-for-the-care-and-use-of-laboratory-animals.pdf) or those of an equivalent internationally recognized body.
In publications of studies with laboratory animals it is necessary to confirm that the care taken of them is in compliance with the relevant requirements and prior authorization to conduct experiments is received by the relevant committee on ethics on animal experiments.
Conflict of Interest
Each author is required to report financial or personal relationship (if any) with other persons or organizations, the presence of which could cause incorrect presentation/distortion of the survey results and their interpretation. Examples of potential conflicts of interest are: recruitment, consultancy, fees, paid expert recommendations, patent registration, supply of materials, grants or any other funding. Accidental participants in the research, interventions in the experiments, a conflict of interest between the authors of the publication are not allowed. Publication or use of a part of the material without prior consent of the other co-authors is unacceptable.
Authors should not contact any of the Section Editors during the review process. All necessary information regarding the process of a manuscript can be obtained from the editorial office. The names of the Section Editor and the reviewers are not given to the author(s). Due to the double-blinded review principles, the names of authors and reviewers are not known to the other.
Errors in Publishing and Corrections 
The corresponding Author shall agree with all co-authors on revisions related to the recommendations made by the reviewers and the Editorial Board. If major errors or inaccuracies are found in the published work, the corresponding author shall timely notify the Journal Editor or the publisher of the amendment. If the Editor or the publisher obtains information about an essential error from a third party, it is the responsibility of the corresponding author to correct the error or to provide evidence of the correctness of the original article.
Generative AI and AI-Assisted Technologies in Scientific Writing, Figures, Images and Artwork
Authors should strictly follow the rules for Generative Artificial Intelligence (AI) policies for journals (https://www.elsevier.com/about/policies-and-standards/generative-ai-policies-for-journals).
Generative AI and AI-assisted technologies should only be used in the writing process to improve the readability and language of the manuscript. The technology must be applied with human oversight and control and authors should carefully review and edit the result. Authors are ultimately responsible and accountable for the contents of the work. Authors must not list or cite AI and AI-assisted technologies as an author or co-author on the manuscript. Authors should disclose in their manuscript the use of AI and AI-assisted technologies and a statement will appear in the published work.
It is not permitted to use of Generative AI or AI-assisted tools to create or alter images in submitted manuscripts. The use of generative AI or AI-assisted tools in the production of artwork such as graphical abstracts is not permitted. The use of generative AI in the production of cover art may in some cases be allowed, if the author obtains prior permission from the Journal Editor and publisher, can demonstrate that all necessary rights have been cleared for the use of the relevant material, and ensures that there is correct content attribution.
Reporting Sex- and Gender-Based Analyses
Authors are advised to refer to Sex and Gender Equity in Research (SAGER) guidelines (https://researchintegrityjournal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s41073-016-0007-6/tables/1) and to SAGER checklist (https://ease.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2023/01/EASE-SAGER-Checklist-2022.pdf), which offer systematic approaches to the use of sex and gender information in study design, data analysis, outcome reporting and research interpretation. It is recommended writing for gender neutrality with the use of plural nouns ("clinicians, patients/clients") as default. Wherever possible, avoid using "he, she," or "he/she."
Image Manipulation
Any manipulation of images for the purpose of deception or fraud will be seen as scientific ethical abuse and will be dealt with accordingly.

DUTIES AND RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE JOURNAL REVIEWERS
Supporting Editorial Decisions
Reviewing is a key part of the communication in the scientific society and an essential element of the scientific method. The reviewing of a scientific paper helps not only the author to improve the quality of the manuscript but also the editorial process and the process of making a decision on publication. 
Selection of Reviewers
The Editor-in-Chief approves a list of reviewers who are experts for the scientific аreas of the Journal. The Section Editor invites experts in the appropriate field area and requests them to undertake a double-blind peer review. Manuscripts will be evaluated by at least two reviewers. The reviewer will make an objective, impartial evaluation of the scientific merits of the manuscript.
Suggestions from Authors
Authors are kindly invited to suggest experts as potential reviewers. The reviewers should not be in conflict of interests and having joint projects or publications with the authors for the last three years. The final selection of reviewers is exclusively the Editor's decision.
Criteria for Reviewers' Comments and Evaluations
The reviewers' comments and evaluations must be made according to the following criteria:

  • Relevance to the scope of SSM
  • Originality and novelty
  • Choice, presentation, and discussion of methods
  • Presentation and discussion of results
  • Relevance to the scientific and/or professional community
  • Style and structure of the text

Lack in scientific precision or other major deficiencies may be a reason for rejecting the manuscript. If a manuscript submitted for publication requires improvement, a revision is required. The authors have to follow the reviewers’ comments and reply to them, whereby rebuttals are allowed, if applicable. Once all these requirements are being fulfilled, the Section Editor decides on the publication of the article. Once all reviews have been received and considered by the Section Editor, an e-mail with the decision is sent to the corresponding author.
Correctness in Terms of Adequate Qualification 
The reviewer has to be a highly competent scientist in the relevant sphere of science. He/she is obliged to notify the editor when he/she is inadequately qualified to review a particular scientific material or he/she is incapable of making an adequately accurate review. It is unacceptable the review to be delayed provided there is a commitment on the part of the reviewer.
Confidentiality
Each article that is subject to reviewing should be considered a confidential document. It is unacceptable the article to be discussed or disclosed to third parties.
Objectivity
The reviewer is obliged to evaluate the submitted manuscript objectively and should not be influenced by personal biases and relationships with the author of the reviewed work. The reviewer's comments should be clear, supported by specific and objective facts and arguments, and should include constructive criticism. Personal criticism and personal attacks against the author are unacceptable.
Accuracy of Citations
The reviewer is required to ensure the accuracy of citations. The reviewer must promptly notify the editor in case of incorrect citation or noted duplication of parts of the material of an already published article.
Conflict of Interest
The review process of Scripta Scientifica Medica is in accordance with the International guidelines for Good Editorial Practice (ICMJE, https://www.icmje.org/; EASE, https://ease.org.uk/; WAME, https://www.wame.org/; COPE, https://publicationethics.org/, CSE, https://www.councilscienceeditors.org/). It is unacceptable unpublished materials in a submitted for a review manuscript to be used by the Reviewers in their own research without the explicit written consent of the Author. Ideas and information acquired in the process of reviewing are strictly confidential and cannot be used for personal benefits. It is unacceptable for the reviewers to accept to review an article in case they have established cooperation or any other relationships with members of the team of authors or institutions associated with the submitted material which could influence the objective evaluation of the work.
Generative AI and AI-Assisted Technologies in the Journal Peer Review Process
The reviewers should strictly follow the Generative AI policies for journals (https://www.elsevier.com/about/policies-and-standards/generative-ai-policies-for-journals). The manuscript for review must be treated as a confidential document. Reviewers should not upload a submitted manuscript or any part of it into a generative AI tool as this may violate the authors’ confidentiality and proprietary rights and may breach data privacy rights. Reviewers should not upload their peer review report into an AI tool, even if it is just for the purpose of improving language and readability. The reviewer is responsible and accountable for the content of the review report.

DUTIES AND RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE JOURNAL EDITORS
Scripta Scientifica Medica (SSM) supports editorial policy recommended by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) (https://publicationethics.org/) and the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) (https://www.icmje.org/).
Reasons for Publication
The proposed research materials are published only after being reviewed and approved by the Section Editor of the Journal. The decision should be a result of the compliance of the work of the criteria for publication in the Journal and its aims and scope. It is the obligation of the Section Editor to organize a prompt review and to deal with the author’s work as quickly as possible, to make a clear statement and notify the author as soon as possible. The Section Editor is required to notify the author of all the weaknesses and errors including technical faults and factual and methodological errors, incorrect, insufficient or unethical citation, etc., without the removal and repair of which the article will not be published. The Section Editor is responsible for the final decision of a given manuscript. The editors are obliged to ensure that all of the published materials are evaluated in advance by reviewers with appropriate qualifications and competence. The editors are obliged to avoid publishing meaningless, redundant or irrelevant to the pre-established criteria publications.
Objectivity
The editors evaluate the submitted for publication material objectively without being influenced by gender, sexual orientation, religious beliefs, ethnic origin, nationality, political affiliation, administrative or academic position of the authors. The Editorial Board provides diverse affiliations both of the published authors and of the assessing reviewers.
Transparency and Sustainability 
The Journal follows a transparent editing policy. The editors are obliged to develop, validate, update systematically and promote the publication criteria, the requirements to authors and the guidelines on reviewing the submitted manuscripts. The Editors are obliged to seek feedback from authors, readers and reviewers actively in order to improve the editing process. It is the responsibility of the Editorial Board to support initiatives preventing abuse in scientific publishing and authorship and to combat plagiarism.
Confidentiality
The editors can distribute information related to a submitted for publication material only to the corresponding author, reviewers, potential reviewers, and if necessary to the publisher. Ideas or information acquired in the process of evaluation of the submitted for publication material is strictly confidential and cannot be used for personal benefits. The publication of reviews or comments on the submitted material before its publication without the prior consent of the authors and reviewers is unacceptable.
Conflict of Interest
The editorial process of Scripta Scientifica Medica is in accordance with the International guidelines for Good Editorial Practice (ICMJE, https://www.icmje.org/; EASE, https://ease.org.uk/; WAME, https://www.wame.org/; COPE, https://publicationethics.org/, CSE, https://www.councilscienceeditors.org/).
Unpublished information disclosed in the submitted manuscript cannot be used by the editors for their research without the explicit written consent of the author. The editors must refuse to take into consideration manuscripts in which they have a conflict of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relations with any of the authors, sponsors or the institutions associated with the publication.
The Editorial Board members of SSM, who handle submissions and recommend decisions may also submit their own manuscripts to the Journal. In this case, they cannot take place at any stage on the editorial decision of their manuscripts in order to minimize any possible bias. They will be treated like any other author, and if any, final acceptance of such manuscripts can only be made by the positive recommendation of at least two external reviewers, who are not the members of decision-making Editorial Board.
Complaints
The editor is obliged to take appropriate action when there are filed complaints concerning the ethical aspects related to a submitted manuscript or an already published article. This includes contacting the author of the article and detailed consideration of the filed complaint. When a complaint is upheld, it is advisable to publish corrections, to give an opinion, disclaimer, etc.
Generative AI and AI-Assisted Technologies in the Journal Editorial Process
Editors should strictly comply the Generative AI policies for journals (https://www.elsevier.com/about/policies-and-standards/generative-ai-policies-for-journals#3-for-editors).
The submitted manuscript and all communication about it, including any notification or decision letters must be treated as a confidential. Editors should not upload a submitted manuscript or any part of it and their letters into a generative AI tool, even if it is just for the purpose of improving language and readability. Generative AI or AI-assisted technologies should not be used by editors to assist in the evaluation or decision-making process of a manuscript.
Jurisdictional Claims
Scripta Scientifica Medica policy is to take a neutral position with respect to territorial disputes or jurisdictional claims, including, but not limited to, maps and institutional affiliations.