Peer Review Policy

PEER REVIEW POLICY

Peer Review Process

Scripta Scientifica Medica (SSM) is a peer-reviewed quarterly journal publishing open-access clinical and experimental research articles in various fields of medicine. The Journal aims to provide state-of-the-art research and educational material within the field of clinical and experimental medicine.

The following types of articles are approved for publication:  Reviews, Original Articles, Case Reports, Short Research Communications, Scientific Letters, Letters to the Editor, Editorial Comment, Registered Clinical Trials, and Others (book reviews and reports on publication and research ethics). The language of the journal is English. All manuscripts submitted to SSM must be previously unpublished and may not be considered for publication elsewhere at any time during the review process. Generally, accepted papers will appear online within 3 weeks followed by printed hard copy. 

Purpose of Review

  • To maintain the quality and integrity of scholarly publications by having experts evaluate submitted work
  • To help authors to improve their manuscripts.
  • To assist the authors in maintaining a good, attentive peer-review process resulting in the publication of good quality papers.
  • To make the authors aware of any additional literature that may provide useful information, comparison, and further clarification of the research.

Reviewer selection

Manuscripts submitted to SSM are reviewed by experts with complementary background and following the COPE guidelines for peer reviewers https://publicationethics.org/guidance/guideline/ethical-guidelines-peer-reviewers.

Professional responsibility

Reviewers expertise must match the content of the manuscript to get the best review possible. The potential reviewer must meet the following requirements: (1) to possess a PhD and academic degree in the area of the submitted manuscript; (2) to have a necessary experience and expertise to assess and evaluate the scientific quality of a manuscript; (3) to be active researcher with a proven publication record in the field; (4) to be free of any conflict of interest with the manuscript authors. If invited to peer review, reviewers should inform the journal if they do not feel qualified to assess a certain piece of work, or if they are aware of a conflict of interest.

Timeliness

The Reviewers should respond to an invitation to peer review within a reasonable time frame, even if they cannot undertake the review. Reviewers should aim to complete the first round of the peer review process within the requested timeframe in the invitation, if possible. If the circumstances change and the reviewer cannot timely do the review or require an extension the journal should be promptly informed. If the reviewer cannot do the review, it is helpful to make suggestions for alternative reviewers if relevant, based on their expertise and without any influence of personal considerations or any intention of the manuscript receiving a specific outcome (either positive or negative).

Reviewer Roles

  • Reviewers are expected to assess originality, validity, scientific soundness, and clarity of the manuscript. The review must indicate the strengths and/or weaknesses of the manuscript.
  • Reviewers must thoroughly review the entire article, including figures, tables, data, methods, and any supplementary materials (if available).
  • The reviewer must refer to the Instructions for Authors to see if the manuscript meets the submission criteria of the journal (https://press-muv.com/ssm/web/index.php/ssm/author-guidelines).
  • Comments of the reviewers must have detailed explanations to help the authors to improve the manuscript quality. It is recommendable to provide the authors with specific and supporting evidence with appropriate references. They should be objective and constructive without being of a hostile or of derogatory nature.
  • A neutral and objective tone should be maintained when providing constructive criticism, with the goal of aiding the authors in improving their work.
  • Reviewers should refrain from suggesting unnecessary citations of their work (self-citations) or another author's work (honorary citations.
  • Generative AI or AI-assisted technologies should not be used by reviewers to assist in the scientific review of a paper. The reviewer is responsible and accountable for the content of the review report.

Confidentiality

SSM is based on independent and unbiased double-blinded peer-reviewed principles. 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. 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 entire process of reviewing an article in Scripta Scientifica Medica is confidential. The manuscript for review must be treated as a confidential document. The reviewers should respect the confidentiality of the peer review process and refrain from using information obtained during the peer review process for own or another’s advantage, or to disadvantage or discredit others. Since peer review is confidential, the reviewers must not share information about the review with anyone without permission from the editors and authors (https://publicationethics.org/guidance).
  • This confidentiality requirement extends to the peer review report and any other communication about the manuscript, such as the notification or decision letters, as they may also contain confidential information about the manuscript and/or the authors.
  • The reviewers should strictly follow the Generative Artificial Intelligence (AI) policies for journals (https://www.elsevier.com/about/policies-and-standards/generative-ai-policies-for-journals).  Reviewers should not upload a submitted manuscript or any part of it into a generative AI tool. 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. Generative AI or AI-assisted technologies should not be used by reviewers to assist in the scientific review of a paper. The reviewer is responsible and accountable for the content of the review report.

Conflict of Interests

  • A competing interest is anything that interferes with, or could reasonably be perceived as interfering with the full and objective presentation, peer review, editorial decision-making, or publication of research or non-research articles submitted to Scripta Scientifica Medica.
  • According to COPE guidelines (https://publicationethics.org/guidance/guideline/ethical-guidelines-peer-reviewers) competing interests may be financial or non-financial (personal, intellectual, professional, political or religious). If the reviewer is currently employed at the same institution as any of the authors or have been recent (eg, within the past 3 years) mentors, mentees, close collaborators or joint grant holders, he/she should not agree to review the manuscript.
  • When a reviewer is invited to review a manuscript, it is necessary to check for any competing interest that may exist between reviewer and the authors. The reviewer should declare all potential competing, or conflicting, interests before accepting the invitation to review.
  • If there are no competing interest the reviewer should declare “No competing interests”.

Editorial Decision

  • The Reviewer needs to make a recommendation to the Editor regarding publication and present a final decision with following options:
    • Accept Submission - if the manuscript is suitable for publication in its current form. It is not required further scientific or experiment-driven changes to be made prior to publication. Minor grammatical or style changes are allowed prior to publication.
    • Revisions Required- if the manuscript will be ready for publication after minor revisions, based on the reviewer’s comments. Please list the revisions you would recommend.
    • Resubmit for Review - if the manuscript will be ready for publication after major Please list the revisions you would recommend. The author needs to provide a point-by-point response or a rebuttal if some of the reviewer's comments cannot be addressed.
    • Decline Submission- the manuscript has significant flaws, misleading claims, or erroneous information that does not make an impactful contribution to field; the paper is not suitable for publication in this journal or if the revisions that need to be undertaken are too many for the submission to continue being considered in its current form.
  • Decision of the Journal editorial office will be FINAL regarding approval of the review comments.

Feedback to Authors

  • Through the journal's platform, authors receive an email informing them of the outcome of the review of their work and providing the reviewers' comments and recommendations.
  • Authors must prepare a response to the reviewers (Rebuttal Letter) with the necessary explanations regarding the recommendations and comments made.
  • The response to the reviewers and the revised article are sent back to the reviewers via the journal's platform.