For Reviewers

Rules for reviewing papers

Submitted works are evaluated in terms of values such as innovative presentation of the topic, importance for the further development of scientific research and for clinical management.

Works registered in the reviewing system of AAMS journal are automatically forwarded to the anti-plagiarism system used by the Medical University of Silesia in Katowice. The results of the verification procedure in the form of an electronic evaluation report is attached to the work and made available to the reviewer(s), as well as the journal’s Editor-in-Chief. In the event the system detects plagiarism, the final decision on whether or not to accept the work rests with the reviewers.

Works are initially evaluated by the AAMS Editorial Office (editorial review):
a) works which do not meet the basic conditions for publication are rejected;
b) works which are incomplete or prepared in a style inconsistent with the rules provided in the Regulations for publishing works in AAMS journal are returned to the authors without any content evaluation;
c) the remaining works are registered and subsequently submitted to two independent reviewers, whose identity is hidden and who are not connected with the institution where the work originated; both the reviewer and author identities are concealed (double-blind peer review).

The reviewers are required to disclose in a letter to the Editor-in-Chief any obligations and circumstances that may adversely affect the publishing process of the work under review. The letter should include a declaration of any existing financial relationships, e.g., with the company that produces the pharmaceuticals being the subject of the work.

If the reviewer has guessed that the work was authored and therefore a conflict of interest arises, he should decline the invitation to review.

The manuscript is approved for publication on the basis of positive opinions of the reviewers.

The review form is used to evaluate the works, which must be sent via the Editorial System.

The reviewers issue their opinion on the basis of a detailed evaluation of the work compared with other papers published on the subject, taking into account the following criteria:
a) originality of the work,
b) significance of the obtained results,
c) quality of the methodology and data,
d) manner of presenting the results,
e) quality of discussions,
f) selection of reference literature.

An opinion on whether the work meets the ethical requirements is also provided by the reviewers.

The conclusions contain information on whether the work may be accepted for publication without changes/accepted after taking into account the corrections suggested by the reviewer/reconsidered after significant corrections and re-review, or whether it should be rejected.

In the final stage, the reviewers provide confidential comments to the Editorial Office, as well as general and detailed (optional) comments to the authors.

The reviewers have the opportunity to submit the content of the amended work in the form of an attachment.

The author familiarizes him/herself with the review, but without the possibility of obtaining information about the reviewer.

The author is obliged to formulate a written response to the review (with a description of the introduced changes) and submit it along with the text of the amended work within the established deadline.

The Editorial Office undertakes to publish a list of all the reviewers of a given annual in AAMS once a year (see Reviewers).