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.

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 its 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

Acta Medica Academica applies the Creative Commons Attribution (CC-BY) license to published articles. Under this license, authors retain ownership of the copyright for their content, but they allow anyone to download, reuse, reprint, modify, distribute and/or copy the content as long as the original authors and source are cited. Appropriate attribution can be provided by simply citing the original article.

Copyright Assignment

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

Informed Consent

All individuals have a right to privacy that should not be infringed without informed consent. Identifying information, including patients’ names, initials, or hospital numbers, should not be published in written descriptions, photographs, and pedigrees unless the information is essential for scientific purposes and the patient (or parent or guardian) gives written informed consent for publication. Informed consent for this purpose requires that a patient who is identifiable be shown the manuscript to be published. Authors should identify Individuals who provide writing assistance and disclose the funding source for this assistance.

Identifying details should be omitted if they are not essential. Complete anonymity is difficult to achieve, however, and informed consent should be obtained if there is any doubt. For example, masking the eye region in photographs of patients is inadequate protection of anonymity. If identifying characteristics are altered to protect anonymity, such as in genetic pedigrees, authors should provide assurance that alterations do not distort scientific meaning.

The following statement should be included:

Informed consent

  • Informed consent: Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

If identifying information about participants is available in the article      

  • Informed consent: Additional informed consent was obtained from all individual participants for whom identifying information is included in this article.

Exceptions where it is not necessary to obtain consent: 

  • Images such as x rays, laparoscopic images, ultrasound images, brain scans, pathology slides unless there is a concern about identifying information in which case, authors should ensure that consent is obtained.  

  • Reuse of images: If images are being reused from prior publications, the Publisher will assume that the prior publication obtained the relevant information regarding consent. Authors should provide the appropriate attribution for republished images.

The Process for Handling Cases Requiring Corrections, Retractions, and Editorial Expressions of Concern

Acta Medica Academica follows the guidelines of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE)


We aim to ensure the integrity of the academic record of all published or potential publications. Whenever it is recognized that a significant inaccuracy, misleading statement, or distorted report has been published, it must be corrected promptly and with due prominence. If, after an appropriate investigation, an item proves to be fraudulent, it should be retracted. The retraction should be clearly identifiable to readers and indexing systems.

Corrections are published upon request and after editorial review. Retractions are published upon request of authors or their institutions and may also be published by the Journal following a determination of scientific misconduct. Notes of Concern are published in response to editorial concerns relating to scientific or publishing misconduct by authors or reviewers or to alert the scientific community of an ongoing investigation.

Research Ethics Policy

Acta Medica Academica is a peer-reviewed journal that aims to ensure high standards of publication ethics. All parties involved in the publication process (editors, authors, referees, publishers, and readers) are obliged to accept standards of ethical conduct.

Acta Medica Academica retains the right to reject any manuscript on the basis of unethical conduct in either human or animal studies.

Human Research

For research involving human experiments, the article must include a statement that ethical approval was obtained (or a statement that ethical approval was not required and why), including the name of the ethics committee(s) or institutional review board(s), the number/ID of the approval(s), and a statement that the participants gave informed consent before taking part (or a statement that consent was not required and why). Authors should also state that the study conformed to the provisions of the Declaration of Helsinki (as revised in Edinburgh 2000), available at: https://www.wma.net/what-we-do/medical-ethics/declaration-of-helsinki/doh-oct2000.

In line with the recommendations of the World Health Organization and the Declaration of Helsinki, clinical trials should be prospectively registered before participants are enrolled. Clinical trial registration numbers should be included in all papers that report on clinical trials.

Where illustrations include recognizable individuals, living or deceased, great care must be taken to ensure that consent for publication has been given. Patient anonymity should be preserved. Photographs need to be cropped sufficiently to prevent human subjects from being recognized, and (at a minimum) the eyes and eyebrows must be masked using coarse pixilation to make the individual unrecognizable.

Animal Research

For any experiments involving animals, the authors must indicate the nature of the ethical review permissions, relevant licences (e.g. Animal [Scientific Procedures] Act 1986), and national or institutional guidelines for the care and use of animals by which the research was conducted.

Where necessary, the Editorial Office reserves the right to request additional information in relation to experiments featured in a manuscript.

Advertising Policy

Acta Medica Academica does not use commercial advertising on journal websites. It may include the logos of non-profit academic organizations and institutions on its site without advertising purposes.

Data Sharing Policy

Publication is conditional upon the agreement of authors to make freely available any materials and information associated with their publication that are reasonably requested by others for the purpose of academic, noncommercial research.

Data Availability

Open access applies to both the scientific literature and the data used to establish that literature. Publication is contingent on making data integral to a manuscript freely available without restriction, provided that appropriate attribution is given and that suitable mechanisms exist for sharing the data used in a manuscript and that in the case of clinical information patient confidentiality is not compromised.

Data for which public repositories have been established that are in general use should be deposited before publication, and the appropriate accession numbers or digital object identifiers published with the paper.

If an appropriate repository does not exist, data should be provided as supporting information with the published paper. If this is not practical, data should be made freely available upon reasonable request.

The conclusions of a study must not be dependent solely on the analysis of proprietary data. If proprietary data were used to reach a conclusion, and the authors are unwilling or unable to make these data public, then the paper must include an analysis of public data that validates the conclusions so that others can reproduce the analysis and build on the findings.

Note that any restrictions on the availability or on the use of datasets might be judged to diminish the significance of a paper and will therefore influence the decision about whether a paper should be published. These policies have been developed in accordance with the principles established in Sharing Publication-Related Data and Materials (National Academies Press, 2003).

Software/Algorithm Sharing

If new software or a new algorithm is central to a paper, the authors must provide sufficient information to allow interested users to reproduce and build on the authors’ work. In cases where the software/algorithm is not central to the paper, we nevertheless encourage authors to make all relevant materials freely available. Software can be provided under license where necessary, but any restrictions on the availability or on the use of materials might be judged to diminish the significance of a paper and therefore might influence the decision about whether a paper should be published subject to those conditions. These policies have been developed in accordance with the principles established in Sharing Publication-Related Data and Materials (National Academies Press, 2003).