Peer Review Process
Manuscripts will be considered for publication only if they have not been previously published, in whole or in part, in print or electronic form and are not under review by another publisher.
Peer review process is based on:
- Principles of Transparency and Best Practice in Scholarly Publishing
- AMWA–EMWA–ISMPP Joint Position Statement on Predatory Publishing
- Sarajevo Declaration on Integrity and Visibility of Scholarly Publications
All articles submitted to the journal undergo a double-blind peer review process, which includes the following steps:
- An initial evaluation to ensure the manuscript meets the journal’s formal requirements, along with a plagiarism check using StrikePlagiarism.
- The Editor-in-Chief, Deputy Editor-in-Chief, or Executive Secretary assesses the manuscript’s relevance to the journal’s scope and assigns appropriate reviewers.
- Once approved for review, the manuscript is sent to at least two independent experts in the relevant field. The double-blind review ensures that neither the authors nor the reviewers have access to each other’s personal information.
- The editorial office forwards the reviewers’ comments and recommendations to the authors via email. The possible outcomes are:
- Acceptance for publication;
- Conditional acceptance, requiring revisions based on reviewer feedback;
- Rejection with the option to revise and resubmit;
- Rejection without the possibility of resubmission.
- Authors must address the reviewers’ comments, provide a detailed response to each point, and submit the revised manuscript for further evaluation.
- Manuscripts that have been rejected will not be reconsidered.
Review Timeline
The double-blind peer review process takes a minimum of four weeks, with an average duration of six to eight weeks.
1. If revisions are required, the author(s) must implement the necessary changes, provide a response to the review, and submit the revised manuscript via email to journals.zsmu@gmail.com or editorial@zsmu.edu.ua
The deadline for submitting the revised version is three weeks. If the manuscript is not resubmitted within this period, it will be considered withdrawn from review.
2. If no revisions are required or all reviewer comments have been adequately addressed, the author(s) will receive an email confirmation, including preliminary details about the issue in which the article is scheduled for publication.
Main Reasons for Manuscript Rejection:
- Lack of alignment with the journal’s scope;
- Plagiarism and/or self-plagiarism;
- Insufficient scientific rigor;
- Lack of originality or relevance, reliance on outdated methods;
- Weak evidence base, unsupported conclusions;
- Violation of the journal's ethical policy.
The decision to accept or reject a manuscript for publication is made at a meeting of the editorial board, based on the reviewers’ evaluations, and is approved by the journal’s editor-in-chief. Authors are informed of the decision by email.
The journal adheres to the recommendations of the World Association of Medical Editors (WAME) regarding potential conflicts of interest in peer-reviewed publications. Materials submitted by the Editor-in-Chief, Deputy Editor-in-Chief, Executive Secretary, or individuals associated with them will undergo peer review like any other submissions and will be evaluated in the same manner as all other manuscripts submitted to the journal. When manuscripts are submitted by members of the Editorial Board (whether as sole authors or co-authors), the review process will be initiated and overseen by an editor without a potential conflict of interest. The editorial team will take all necessary measures to ensure unbiased double-blind peer review. Other members of the Editorial Board are not involved in making the final decision regarding the acceptance of the article.
Reviewer Guidelines:
