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.