Peer-Review Process
Annals of Clinical and Analytical Medicine follows a rigorous peer-review process to ensure that all submissions meet high scientific standards.
General Principles of Peer Review
Annals of Clinical and Analytical Medicine conducts a thorough peer-review process that emphasizes scientific integrity, impartiality, confidentiality, and adherence to ethical values.
Stages of the Review Process
All submissions undergo an initial screening by the editorial team to assess their fit within the journal’s scope, academic quality, and ethical compliance. Manuscripts that pass this preliminary review are then subjected to double-blind peer review by at least two independent experts in the field.
Plagiarism Screening
Before the peer-review process, each manuscript is checked for originality using reliable plagiarism detection software, such as DupliChecker. This screening ensures that submissions are free from plagiarism and meet our standards for academic honesty. If the similarity index exceeds acceptable thresholds or if plagiarism is detected, the manuscript may be returned to the author for revision or rejected outright. This initial check is an essential part of maintaining the journal’s ethical integrity.
Double-Blind Review System
Our journal uses a double-blind review system in which both the authors’ and reviewers’ identities are concealed. This approach ensures an objective and unbiased review process.
Reviewer Responsibilities and Expectations
Reviewers are expected to provide detailed feedback on the originality, methodology, findings, and scientific contribution of each manuscript. Reviewers should offer constructive, impartial, and ethical feedback. In cases where the manuscript requires improvement, reviewers are encouraged to provide suggestions.
Reviewer Reports and Publication Decision
Based on reviewers’ feedback, the editors make a decision to accept, request revisions, or reject the manuscript. Reviewer comments offer authors constructive feedback to improve their work. Review outcomes are shared with the authors, and revisions are requested if necessary.
Revision Process
Manuscripts requiring revisions are returned to the authors, who are expected to address the reviewers’ comments and resubmit within a specified timeframe. Revised submissions are re-evaluated by the same reviewers.
Timelines for Reviewers
Reviewers are typically given 2-4 weeks to complete their evaluations. If additional time is required, reviewers should inform the editors to maintain a timely review process.
Confidentiality and Impartiality
All reviewers are obligated to uphold confidentiality throughout the review process and must not share information regarding the manuscript with third parties. Reviewers are prohibited from using any information obtained during the review for personal gain.
Role and Responsibility of the Editor
Editors objectively assess reviewer reports and make the final publication decision. They ensure the review process is fair, transparent, and free from bias.
Contact Information
For any inquiries regarding the peer-review process, please contact us at info@acamedicine.com