Reviewer Guidelines

Peer Review Process
Purpose of Review
Reviewer Profile
Guidelines for Peer Reviewers
Reviewer Responsibilities
Benefits for Reviewers

 

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 All manuscripts submitted to SSM must be previously unpublished and may not be considered for publication elsewhere at any time during the review process.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 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 profile

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

Authors who have benefited from the peer review process should consider becoming peer reviewers as a part of their professional responsibilities. Reviewers expertise must match the content of the manuscript to get the best review possible.

To be considered for a peer reviewer the academics must: (1) possess a PhD in the area of the submitted manuscript; (2) have a necessary experience and expertise to assess and evaluate the scientific quality of a manuscript; (3) be active researcher with a proven publication record in the field; (4) 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).

Competing 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 you are 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, you should not agree to review. In addition, you should not agree to review a manuscript just to gain sight of it with no intention of submitting a review, or agree to review a manuscript that is very similar to one you have in preparation or under consideration at another journal. 

When you are invited to review a manuscript, check for any competing interest that may exist between you and the authors. Ensure you declare all potential competing, or conflicting, interests before you accept the invitation to review.

If there are no competing interest declare “No competing interests”.

Guidelines for Peer Reviewers

  • 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. 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.
  • All the reviewers need to accept the terms and conditions of peer review, before starting a review. It is expected of reviewers to undertake an objective review of a manuscript and without uncovering the author's identity.
  • 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 expertise. 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.
  • Once reviewers receive a request for peer review, it is necessary to respond within 1 week whether they agree to accept the review invitation “Will Do the Review” or “Unable to Do the Review”, particularly if they cannot do the review. If an e-mail reply from the selected reviewer does not arrive within the indicated time period, an alternative reviewer will be invited.
  • Upon agreeing the reviewers gain access to the text file of the manuscript and the supplementary files.
  • Reviewers must thoroughly review the entire article, including figures, tables, data, methods, and any supplementary materials (if available). Comments of the reviewers must have detailed explanations to help the authors improve the manuscript quality. Review comments of less than 250 words will not be approved by the editorial office.
  • The reviewer must refer to the Guidelines for Authors https://press-muv.com/ssm/web/index.php/ssm/author-guidelines to see if the manuscript meets the submission criteria of the journal. 
  • A neutral and objective tone should be maintained when providing constructive criticism, with the goal of aiding the authors in improving their work. It is recommendable to provide the authors with specific and supporting evidence with appropriate references. Inappropriate or derogatory comments will not be accepted.
  • Reviewers should refrain from suggesting unnecessary citations of their work (self-citations) or another author's work (honorary citations.
  • Respect the confidentiality of the peer review process and refrain from using information obtained during the peer review process for your own or another’s advantage, or to disadvantage or discredit others (https://publicationethics.org/guidance/case/possible-breach-reviewer-confidentiality?utm_source=website&utm_medium=pdf&utm_campaign=ethical-guidelines-peer-reviewers).
  • The review must indicate the strengths or weaknesses of the manuscript.
  • The reviewer must complete the reviewer's questionnaire, answering a number of questions related to the article.
  • The reviewer must include comments, one visible to the editor and author, and the other, to the editor only.
  • Review comments must be uploaded to the ONLINE reviewer dashboard only. Review comments submitted as an e-mail attachment will not be considered as valid submission.
  • The reviewers should evaluate the publication mainly according to soundness of methodology and conduct of the study. The reviewers need to make a recommendation to the editor regarding publication and present a final decision using a drop-down menu with following options:
    • Accept Submission: 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: 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: the manuscript will be ready for publication after major revisions. 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 manuscript is not suitable for publication in this journal or the revisions that need to be undertaken are too many for the submission to continue being considered in its current form.
  • The FINAL decision regarding approval of the review comments is made by the journal editorial office.
  • The Reviewer should upload the review within 3 weeks.

Use of Generative AI and AI-Assisted Technologies in the Journal Peer Review Process

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).

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. 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.

Reviewer Responsibilities

  • Reviewers are responsible for assessing the quality of the manuscript and offering recommendations to the Academic Editors on whether the manuscript should be accepted, revised, or declined. However, the final decisions about publication within the journal will be made by the Academic Editors and/or the Editor-in-Chief, who will take the reviewers recommendations and the author's responses.
  • Reviewers must provide unbiased and constructive, quality feedback within review reports, and must adhere to the highest standards of professionalism and ethics throughout the entire review process.
  • Reviewers should evaluate the veracity of the presented research; they must inform the Academic Editors if they consider that are not qualified to do the review for a specific topic.
  • Reviewers should respect the intellectual independence of the author, be constructive and courteous in their remarks, and avoid personal comments.
  • Reviewers should not reveal their identity to the authors, either in their comments or in metadata for reports.
  • Reviewers are responsible for reading the journal's Reviewer Guidelines in their entirety, as well as familiarizing themselves with the journal's Author Guidelines, Editorial Process, Editorial Policies, and Style Guide.
  • Reviewers must ensure that manuscripts are evaluated promptly and within the agreed time period. In the event that an unforeseen matter prevents a timely review after a reviewer has agreed to provide a report, it is the responsibility of the reviewer to promptly notify the Editorial Office about this delay.

Benefits for Reviewers

1. Opportunity to publish an Editorial article: Reviewers will get an invitation to publish complimentary articles with the following terms and conditions:

1.1 Comments of the reviewers are detailed explanations to help the authors.

1.2. Quality review comments are uploaded to the online reviewer dashboard.

1.3. A minimum of 5 approved quality review reports.

2. Certificate of peer reviewing: Reviewers will get an official Certificate of Peer Reviewing (signed scanned copy) for every approved peer review comment. Please see a sample certificate here: https://press-muv.com/ssm/certificates/

3. Nomination for “Reviewer of the Season”: After completion of a timely quality peer review, you will be nominated for the “Reviewer of the Season” competition. Winners of the competition will get the prestigious “Reviewer of the Season” certificate (signed scanned copy), which will help reviewers in their academic careers.

4. Nomination for Annual Peer Reviewers: Extraordinary reviewers will be included in the Info Academica university journal. This is a university journal with print and online ISSN. Photographs and short biographies of selected reviewers will be published. Extraordinary reviewers will be promoted by the University TV (http://mu-vi.tv/LiveStreams/pages/Live.aspx), University website (https://www.mu-varna.bg/BG), University Publishing Department website (https://press.mu-varna.bg/.