For reviewers
Guidelines for Reviewers
Contributions submitted to the journal that are selected for peer-review are typically sent to three reviewers chosen by the editor or associate editors, but considerations of timeliness may require the editor to act on the basis of less than three reviews.
Authors are welcome to suggest potential reviewers; however, it is the editor's decision to choose the reviewers according to topic area of their research.
The review should be made on the review form in the Editorial System (http://www.editorialsystem.com/anpomes).
Authors are welcome to suggest potential reviewers; however, it is the editor's decision to choose the reviewers according to topic area of their research.
The review should be made on the review form in the Editorial System (http://www.editorialsystem.com/anpomes).
Selection of Reviewers
Reviewers are selected on the basis of many factors, including expertise, prior publications in the same topic area, and prior performance as a reviewer (including quality and timeliness).
Topic area: pre-clinical medical sciences, medical clinical treatment sciences, non-surgical medical sciences.
Timeliness
Because we are committed to provide timely editorial decisions, potential reviewers are requested to respond promptly and those who accept invitations to review are requested to provide their comments within the agreed timeframe. If reviewers anticipate that they will not be able to meet the deadline, they are requested to inform the assigning editor so that alternative arrangements can be made.
Potential Conflicts of Interest
If a reviewer perceives that there may be a significant conflict of interest (financial or otherwise) for a particular manuscript that they are invited to review, they should either seek clarification with the assigning editor or decline the invitation.
Editing Referees' Reports
As a matter of policy, comments that were intended for the authors are transmitted; however, we reserve the right to edit a report in order to remove offensive language or to remove comments that reveal confidential information.
Requests to Re-review
We may return to reviewers for further advice, particularly in cases where there is disagreement among reviewers or where authors believe that reviewers have misunderstood points of fact. However, editors will not send a resubmitted paper back to the reviewers if the quality of the revisions can be adequately evaluated by the assigned editor without additional input.
Confidentiality
Manuscripts are reviewed with due respect for authors’ and reviewers' confidentiality. As a condition of agreeing to assess the manuscript, all reviewers undertake to keep submitted manuscripts and associated data confidential.
Anonymity
We do not release reviewers' identities to authors. We strongly discourage authors from attempting to determine reviewer identities or to confront their reviewers directly. Our policy is to neither confirm nor deny speculation about reviewers' identities and we encourage reviewers to adopt a similar policy.
General guidelines
The reviewer evaluates selected aspects of the article:
- whether the issues raised in the article are consistent with the profile of the journal,
- whether the problem raised at work is current,
- is the work original and contains elements of novelty,
- does the summary inform enough about the content of the work,
- are the keywords correct,
- is the text well-designed,
- does the work contain elements that can be omitted,
- whether the applied research methods ensure the reliability of the results obtained,
- whether the interpretation of the results is correct,
- are the conclusions justified by research results,
- is the terminology correct?
- do the figures and tables have a clear structure,
- are all the figures and tables necessary,
- is the cited literature correct,
- is the language website of the work at a good level,
- whether statistical analysis is satisfactory.
Editors send a decision letter containing the reviews to the Author.
There are 4 possible decision types:
- accept,
- accept after minor changes,
- rate once again after major changes,
- reject.
1st and 4th decisions are the final decisions and they finish the manuscript workflow. In case of 2nd and 3rd decision the new version of manuscript is created in the system and Author is asked to revise the manuscript.
Editors can make a decision at any time. For example Editors can make a decision without sending the manuscript for a peer review.
Editors can make a decision at any time. For example Editors can make a decision without sending the manuscript for a peer review.
We process personal data collected when visiting the website. The function of obtaining information about users and their behavior is carried out by voluntarily entered information in forms and saving cookies in end devices. Data, including cookies, are used to provide services, improve the user experience and to analyze the traffic in accordance with the Privacy policy. Data are also collected and processed by Google Analytics tool (more).
You can change cookies settings in your browser. Restricted use of cookies in the browser configuration may affect some functionalities of the website.
You can change cookies settings in your browser. Restricted use of cookies in the browser configuration may affect some functionalities of the website.
