Review Process

Peer Review Process for Authors

Acta Medica employs a double-blind peer review system, in which the identities of the authors and reviewers are concealed from each other throughout the review process. Each manuscript is evaluated by the editors and, if deemed suitable for peer review, by at least two independent external reviewers.

The following is an outline of the review process:

  1. Initial Check (Technical Screening): Each submitted manuscript is first checked by the editorial office for compliance with the Author Guidelines, including the completeness of the required files, information, and declarations and adherence to the formatting requirements. A similarity check may also be performed when necessary. Manuscripts that do not meet these requirements are returned to the authors for correction before further evaluation.
  2. Preliminary Evaluation (Desk Review): Manuscripts that pass the initial check are forwarded to the Editor-in-Chief, who assigns the manuscript to the appropriate Section Editor in Basic Sciences, Medical Sciences, or Surgical Sciences. For manuscripts submitted to special issues, supplements, thematic collections, or other invited academic initiatives, the Editor-in-Chief may assign a Guest Editor with relevant subject expertise to participate in the editorial evaluation. The preliminary evaluation covers the manuscript's fit with the journal's aim and scope, originality, scientific merit, language quality, compliance with ethical standards, and conflicts of interest. When necessary, manuscripts may be referred to the Biostatistics Editor for evaluation of study design, statistical methodology, analysis, and reporting, or to the Ethics Editor for assessment of research ethics, informed consent, publication ethics, or other ethical concerns. Depending on the outcome of the preliminary evaluation, manuscripts may be returned to the authors for revision before peer review, or manuscripts that are not suitable for peer review may be rejected without external review (desk rejection).
  3. Peer Review: If the Editor-in-Chief, the Section Editor, or the Guest Editor where applicable deem the manuscript suitable, it is sent to at least two independent reviewers for double-blind peer review. Letters to the Editor and Image Reports are generally evaluated by the editors and may be sent to one or more reviewers if the editors consider it necessary. If the reviewer reports substantially differ in their assessment, an additional reviewer may be invited.
  4. Editorial Recommendation: The Section Editor or the Guest Editor evaluates the reviewer reports and submits a recommendation to the Editor-in-Chief.
  5. Decision: All final decisions are made by the Editor-in-Chief. Section Editors make recommendations but do not make final decisions. Manuscripts may undergo more than one round of revision and peer review before a final decision is reached.

Peer Review Process for Editors and Reviewers

The initial check by the editorial office includes:

  • Compliance with the formatting requirements and article type limits,
  • Completeness of the required files, information, and declarations,
  • Similarity check using iThenticate or Turnitin, when necessary.

The preliminary evaluation by the Editor-in-Chief and the Section Editor includes:

  • Fit with the journal's aim and scope,
  • Originality and scientific merit,
  • Factual or methodological errors,
  • Research quality,
  • Language quality (e.g., grammar, spelling, and clarity),
  • Compliance with ethical standards,
  • Conflicts of interest.

Based on the preliminary evaluation, the manuscript is rejected, returned to the authors for revision, or sent for peer review.

Reviewer selection:

Reviewers are selected by the Section Editor based on the following criteria:

  • Expertise in the subject area of the manuscript, as demonstrated by relevant publications and academic experience,
  • Absence of conflicts of interest with the authors or the manuscript, including recent collaboration (e.g., co-authorship within the last three years), personal or professional relationships, or financial interests,
  • Affiliation with an institution different from those of the authors,
  • Availability to complete the review within the period specified in the review invitation.

Reviewers suggested by the authors may be considered; however, their independence is verified, and the editors are not obliged to invite them.

The review process by peer reviewers includes:

  • Declaration of conflicts of interest: Reviewers must declare any potential conflict of interest before accepting the invitation. If a conflict of interest is declared, the editors evaluate it and assign another reviewer if necessary, in accordance with COPE guidelines.
  • Confidentiality: Reviewers must treat the manuscript and all related information as confidential (see Ethical Responsibilities of Reviewers).
  • Thorough review of the manuscript.
  • Quality evaluation: Research question and hypothesis, theoretical background and relevance to the scientific literature, methodology, scientific standards, language and presentation, and major strengths and weaknesses.
  • Providing feedback: Suggestions for changes to improve the study or the presentation of the results.
  • Recommendation: Making one of four recommendations: "Accept for publication", "Minor revision", "Major revision", or "Reject".
  • Drafting a review report:
    • Supporting the points made in the comments with literature citations, if appropriate.
    • Providing specific feedback on the manuscript file (e.g., comments in PDF or DOCX files), if needed.
  • Confidential comments: Providing confidential comments to the editors, separately from the comments to the authors.

Editorial recommendation and final decision:

  • The Section Editor or the Guest Editor where applicable evaluates the reviewer reports and forwards a recommendation to the Editor-in-Chief. There may be more than one round of revision and peer review before a final decision is made.
  • Where relevant, assessments from the Biostatistics Editor or the Ethics Editor may also be considered as part of the editorial evaluation.
  • The Editor-in-Chief evaluates the recommendation and makes the final decision to accept or reject the manuscript.
  • If the manuscript is accepted, it proceeds to the production process.

Submissions by Editors and Editorial Board Members

The Editor-in-Chief, Section Editors, Guest Editors, Editorial Board members, and members of any other editorial or advisory body of the journal may submit manuscripts to Acta Medica. To ensure an objective and unbiased evaluation in accordance with COPE guidance, such submissions are handled as follows:

  • The manuscript undergoes the same initial check, preliminary evaluation, and double-blind peer review process as all other submissions, without any preferential treatment.
  • The author-editor declares this role as a conflict of interest and has no involvement in, influence over, or access to the handling of the manuscript, including reviewer selection, reviewer identities, reviewer reports, and editorial decisions.
  • Manuscripts authored by Section Editors, Guest Editors, Editorial Board members, or members of any other editorial or advisory body are handled by the Editor-in-Chief and a Section Editor who has no conflict of interest with the authors.
  • If the Editor-in-Chief is an author, the editorial process and the final decision are handled by a Section Editor or an Editorial Board member who has no conflict of interest and is designated for this purpose. In such cases, a statement indicating that the manuscript was handled independently of the Editor-in-Chief is included in the published article.

Editorial and Review Policy for Special Issues

Acta Medica may publish special issues on specific topics and supplements containing the proceedings of scientific meetings. To maintain the journal's publication quality and academic integrity, special issues and supplements are subject to the following principles:

  • Editorial Responsibility: The Editor-in-Chief retains ultimate editorial responsibility for all content published in the journal, including special issues and supplements. All content must fall within the journal's scope and comply with its publication policies.
  • Approval of Proposals: Special issue and supplement proposals are evaluated and approved by the Editor-in-Chief together with the publisher.
  • Guest Editors: The academic competence, expertise, and publication record of proposed Guest Editors in the subject of the special issue are reviewed and approved by the Editor-in-Chief. All activities of Guest Editors, including reviewer assignments and the management of the review process, are overseen by the Editor-in-Chief or designated Section Editors.
  • Peer Review: Manuscripts submitted to special issues undergo the same initial check, preliminary evaluation, and double-blind peer review process as regular submissions. No exemptions are granted, and the final decision on each manuscript is made by the Editor-in-Chief.
  • Submissions by Guest Editors: Manuscripts authored or co-authored by Guest Editors are handled through an independent review process in which the Guest Editor has no role in, influence over, or access to the handling of their own submission (see Submissions by Editors and Editorial Board Members). Such manuscripts may not exceed 25% of the articles published in the special issue.
  • Labeling: Articles published in special issues are clearly identified as part of the respective special issue.
  • Supplements of Meeting Abstracts: Abstracts of scientific meetings published as supplements are evaluated by the scientific committee of the respective meeting and are not subject to the journal's peer review process. This is clearly stated in the supplement. The final decision to publish a supplement rests with the Editor-in-Chief.

Appeals

Authors may appeal editorial decisions in accordance with the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) guidelines. Appeals must be based on substantive grounds and supported by strong evidence, additional information, or data.

Authors can send an appeal letter to the editorial office via [email protected]. Appeal letters should include (if available):

  • The reasons for the appeal,
  • Details of the technical errors,
  • Reasons for disagreements and disputes,
  • Evidence regarding conflicts of interest,
  • Additional or new resources, evidence, information, and data.

Appeals are evaluated by the Editor-in-Chief, where possible with the involvement of a Section Editor who was not involved in the original decision. The editors will respond to the appeal within two months. As a result of the evaluation, the original decision may be upheld or revised, a revision may be requested, or an additional review process may be initiated. All decisions on appeals are final.

Complaints regarding the editorial process or ethical concerns are handled as described in the Complaints section of the Research and Publication Ethics policy.

Manuscript Withdrawal

Withdrawal refers to the removal of a manuscript from the editorial process before publication. Withdrawal requests must be submitted by the corresponding author via [email protected], must state the reasons for withdrawal, and must be confirmed in writing by all authors. A manuscript under consideration by Acta Medica must not be submitted to another journal until the withdrawal has been confirmed by the editorial office.

  • Before peer review: Manuscripts that have not yet been sent to reviewers may be withdrawn upon request.
  • During peer review: Manuscripts that have been sent for peer review cannot be withdrawn arbitrarily. Withdrawal requests at this stage must be justified (e.g., significant delays in the review process or errors identified by the authors) and are evaluated by the Editor-in-Chief.
  • After acceptance: The withdrawal of accepted manuscripts is permitted only in exceptional and justified circumstances and is subject to the approval of the Editor-in-Chief.
  • After publication: Articles published online, including those published in Early View, cannot be withdrawn. Errors or ethical issues identified after publication are handled in accordance with the Correction and Retraction Policy.