Editorial Policies

Focus and Scope

Acta Medica Academica is a triannual, peer-reviewed journal that publishes: (1) reports of original research, (2) original clinical observations accompanied by analysis and discussion, (3) analysis of philosophical, ethical, or social aspects of the health profession or biomedical sciences, (4) critical reviews, (5) statistical compilations, (6) descriptions of evaluation of methods or procedures, (7) case reports, and (8) images in clinical medicine. The fields covered include basic biomedical research, clinical and laboratory medicine, veterinary medicine, clinical research, epidemiology, pharmacology, public health, oral health, and medical information.

 

Section Policies

 

Peer Review Process

All manuscripts submitted to Acta Medica Academica undergo a “double- blind” peer review process, i.e. the reviewers do not know who the authors of the manuscript are and the authors do not have access to the information of who the peer-reviewers are. They are reviewed by at least three reviewers. The editors maintain final discretion over publication of all papers. At the beginning of each year, the journal Acta Medica Academica publishes a list of reviewers for the previous year on the website.

Once a manuscript is submitted, the Editor / internal reviewer (who can be an Editorial Board or Editorial Council member) determines if the manuscript is appropriate to the journal scope and is of sufficient quality to go through the normal review process or not.

If the manuscript is not of a sufficient quality to go through the normal review process or if the subject of the manuscript is not appropriate to the journal scope, the Editor rejects the manuscript with no further processing.

If the Editor determines that the submitted manuscript is of sufficient quality and falls within the scope of the journal, he/she assigns the manuscript to a minimum of 3 and a maximum of 5 external reviewers for peer-review. The reviewers submit their reports on the manuscripts along with their recommendation according to one of the following actions to the Editor:

1. Acceptable,

2. Acceptable with suggestion for revision,

3. Acceptable only if adequately revised and requiring re-review,

4. Acceptable only if considerably shortened,

5. Reject.

When all reviewers submit their reports, the Editor can make one of the following editorial recommendations:

 1. Publish unaltered,

2. Consider after minor changes,

3. Consider after major changes,

 4. Reject.

– If the Editor recommends "Publish unaltered," the manuscript is accepted for publication.

 – If the Editor recommends "Consider after minor changes," the authors are notified to prepare and submit a final copy of their manuscript with the required minor changes suggested by the reviewers. The Editor reviews the revised manuscript after the minor changes have been made by the authors. Once the Editor is satisfied with the final manuscript, the manuscript can be accepted. Revised manuscript has to be submitted within two weeks. If the authors think they are unable to meet the deadline, they should notify the Editorial Office.

 – If the Editor recommends "Consider after major changes," the recommendation is communicated to the authors. The authors are expected to revise their manuscript in accordance with the changes recommended by the reviewers and to submit their revised manuscript within two months. Submission later than that will be regarded as a new submission that will go through the complete review process from the beginning. If the authors think they are unable to meet the deadline, they should notify the Editorial Office. When the Editor receives a revised manuscript it is being sent to the reviewers for their approval. If the reviewers approve the revised version, the manuscript is accepted for publication, if not, it is rejected.

 – If the Editor recommends rejecting the manuscript, the rejection is immediate. Also, if two of the reviewers recommend rejecting the manuscript, the rejection is immediate. The editorial workflow gives the Editors the authority in rejecting any manuscript because of inappropriateness of its subject, lack of quality, or incorrectness of its results. The Editor cannot assign himself/herself as an external reviewer of the manuscript. This is to ensure a high-quality, fair, and unbiased peer-review process for every manuscript submitted to the journal, since any manuscript must be recommended by two or more (usually two or more) external reviewers along with the Editor in charge of the manuscript in order for it to be accepted for publication in the journal.

 

Open Access Policy

This journal provides immediate open access to its content on the principle that making research freely available to the public supports a greater global exchange of knowledge.

 

Conflict of Interest Statement

Conflict of Interest Statement

 

Copyright Assignment and Affirmation of Originality

Copyright Assignment and Affirmation of Originality

 

Patient Consent AMA

Patient Consent AMA

 

Statement on Human and Animal Rights

Statement on Human and Animal Rights

 

Publication Ethics and Publication Malpractice Statement

Publication Ethics and Publication Malpractice Statement