Reviewing procedure
Peer Reviewers
Scripta Medica uses a single-blind review system for all papers. Each manuscript is reviewed by at least two reviewers. The reviewers act independently and they are not aware of each other’s identities.
Reviewers are selected solely according to whether they have the relevant expertise for evaluating a manuscript. They must not be from the same institution as the author(s) of the manuscript, nor be their co-authors in the recent past.
No suggestions of individual reviewers by the author(s) of the manuscript will be accepted.
Purpose of Peer Review
The purpose of peer review is to assist the Editorial Board in making a decision on whether to accept or reject a paper.
Peer review also assists authors in improving the quality, clarity and scientific value of their manuscripts.
Peer Review Process
Initial Evaluation
Manuscripts are sent for review only if they pass the initial evaluation regarding their form and thematic scope.
Special care is taken to ensure that the initial evaluation does not last longer than necessary.
Peer Review
Under normal circumstances, the review process takes up to four weeks, and only exceptionally up to three months.
The total period from the submission of a manuscript until its publication takes an average of 90 days.
Additional Information
During the review process, the Editor-in-Chief may require authors to provide additional information, including raw data, when these materials are necessary for the evaluation of the manuscript.
These materials shall be kept confidential and must not be used for any other purposes.
Online Review System
The entire review process takes place under the supervision of the Editor-in-Chief in an online environment within the SCIndeks Assistant, a system based on the OJS platform.
The system also allows authors to track the entire process of reviewing their manuscript.
Resolving Inconsistencies
If authors have serious and reasonable objections to the reviews, the Editorial Board assesses whether a review is objective and whether it meets appropriate academic standards.
If there is doubt regarding the objectivity or quality of a review, the Editor-in-Chief will assign additional reviewer(s).
Additional reviewers may also be assigned when reviewers’ decisions regarding acceptance or rejection are contrary to each other or otherwise substantially incompatible.