Peer-Review Process
Annals of Clinical and Analytical Medicine follows a rigorous peer-review process to ensure that all submissions meet high scientific standards.
The journal conducts a thorough peer-review process guided by scientific integrity, impartiality, confidentiality, and adherence to ethical publishing values.
Submissions undergo an initial editorial screening for scope, academic quality, and ethics. Suitable manuscripts are sent for double-blind peer review by at least two independent experts.
All manuscripts are checked using plagiarism detection tools (e.g., DupliChecker) prior to review. If plagiarism is detected or the similarity index exceeds acceptable thresholds, the manuscript may be returned or rejected. This ensures academic honesty and ethical integrity.
The identities of both authors and reviewers are kept anonymous to ensure fairness and objectivity in the review process.
Reviewers evaluate originality, methodology, and scientific merit. They provide constructive and unbiased feedback. When revisions are needed, reviewers are encouraged to offer clear guidance.
Based on reviewer evaluations, the editor decides whether to accept, revise, or reject the manuscript. All reviewer feedback is shared with the authors for transparency and improvement.
Authors are given a specific period to revise their manuscripts in response to reviewer comments. Revised manuscripts are typically re-evaluated by the same reviewers.
Reviewers are usually given 2–4 weeks to complete their review. If more time is needed, they are expected to notify the editorial team promptly.
All manuscripts and communications are confidential. Reviewers must not share manuscript content or use it for personal gain. Impartiality is essential throughout the process.
Editors make the final decision based on reviewer input, ensuring the process remains fair, unbiased, and ethically sound.
In accordance with the best practices outlined by the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE), the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), the World Association of Medical Editors (WAME), and the Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ), ACAM ensures full transparency and impartiality in the peer review of manuscripts submitted by members of the journal’s editorial board.
When an editorial board member submits a manuscript to ACAM, the following additional precautions are taken:
- The submitted article is assigned to a handling editor who has no conflicts of interest with the author and is not a member of the editorial board.
- The submitting editor is excluded from all stages of the editorial and review process, including reviewer selection, editorial decisions, and communications.
- A double-blind peer review is conducted, where both reviewers and authors remain anonymous, and at least two independent external reviewers are assigned.
- If deemed necessary, a third reviewer or a senior advisory editor is consulted to ensure objectivity.
- All editorial decisions are documented, and a transparency statement is recorded for audit purposes.
- Final acceptance or rejection is made by a designated senior editor, excluding any involvement from the author-editor.
These procedures are intended to preserve the integrity of the editorial process, minimize potential bias, and ensure that all submissions are evaluated solely on their scientific merit.
