Editorial Policy

Editorial Process

All manuscripts submitted for publication undergo a strict review process, evaluating their originality, methodology, importance, quality, ethical nature, and suitability for the journal. The editor-in-chief has full authority over the editorial and scientific content, as well as the timing of publication. Annals of Medical Research follows a rigorous and transparent double-anonymized peer-review process to ensure the highest standards of academic integrity.

The entire editorial and peer review process consists of 17 stages:

  1. First technical review + first similarity check by the Editor Secretary

  2. First review by the Editor-in-chief: [immediate rejection, immediate revision, or further evaluation]

  3. First review by the Section Editors

  4. First evaluation at the Weekly Editorial Board Meeting

  5. Second review by the Editor-in-chief: [immediate rejection, immediate revision, or further evaluation]

  6. First review by two or more external reviewers

  7. First review by a Biostatistics Editors

  8. Revisions (if necessary)

  9. Second evaluation by the Section Editors

  10. Second evaluation at the Weekly Editorial Board Meeting

  11. Third review by the Editor-in-chief: [acceptance, rejection, revision]

  12. Assignment of DOI number

  13. Language Editor’s review

  14. Second similarity check

  15. Proofreading preparation

  16. Final review by the Editor Secretary, Section Editors, and Editor-in-chief

  17. Publication

Technical reviews are typically processed within a few days after submission. The initial evaluation usually takes 1 to 3 weeks for 90% of the submissions. Stage 6's timing depends on how promptly the authors follow the instructions and provide any missing documents. The publication process after submission may take between 1 to 12 months. However, all accepted manuscripts are assigned a DOI number after acceptance and copy editing and are published as Preprints before being included in the planned issue.

Peer Review Process

Manuscripts go through a double-anonymized peer-review process, ensuring that authors and reviewers remain anonymous. Each submission is reviewed by at least two independent external reviewers who are experts in the relevant field. While authors may suggest potential reviewers, the final decision on reviewer selection lies with the editor, who is not obligated to use the authors' suggested reviewers.

Confidentiality is paramount throughout the review process. Reviewers must maintain the confidentiality of the manuscript and may not share it with others without the editor's prior consent. This confidentiality also extends to colleagues who may be asked to provide feedback with the editor's approval. Reviewers are expected to provide prompt, accurate, and unbiased feedback. Reviews should be evidence-based, well-reasoned, and constructive to improve the manuscript's quality.

Reviewers must disclose any potential conflicts of interest before accepting an invitation to review. All communications between editors and reviewers are confidential. Reviewers are required to confidentially report any suspected research misconduct to the editor to uphold the integrity of the review process.

Peer reviewers are required to adhere to the principles of COPE's Ethical Guidelines for Peer-reviewers. These guidelines provide a framework for reviewers to follow to ensure the integrity and fairness of the peer review process. The Editorial Board follows COPE’s relevant flowchart to minimize peer review manipulation. If there is suspicion of peer review manipulation after publication, the Editorial Board will follow the appropriate flowchart of COPE.

The Editor in Chief evaluates the suitability of submissions. Suitable manuscripts are assigned to Section Editors, who manage the review process, request revisions, or decide on rejection. Section Editors provide recommendations forwarded to the Editor in Chief for the final decision.

Once the peer-review process is completed, the authors will receive anonymous peer-review reports along with the editorial decision on their manuscript. Peer-review reports will not be posted publicly in any medium. The submitted material is considered confidential and must not be used in any way until after its publication. If it is suspected that a reviewer has appropriated an author’s ideas or data, the Editorial Board will handle the matter in accordance with the relevant COPE’s guideline.

If the peer review process deviates from the standard policy, the type of review will be clearly stated in the article to maintain transparency and accountability.