National Awards “Science and Research”
NEW! RJP has announced the annually National Award for "Science and Research" for the best scientific articles published throughout the year in the official journal.
Read the Recommendations for the Conduct, Reporting, Editing, and Publication of Scholarly work in Medical Journals.
The published medical research literature is a global public good. Medical journal editors have a social responsibility to promote global health by publishing, whenever possible, research that furthers health worldwide.
Peer review process (Editorial rules)
The scientific quality of the published papers is warranted by the impartial single blind peer review process conducted by the journal.
The manuscripts will be received at the editorial office as an attachment in Word format (or similar) to an e-mail sent to email@example.com. Professional photo editing, scans, charts editing – if necessary – are in the duty of the publisher.
Note: The author must provide a correspondence e-mail address in the body of the e-mail, otherwise, the address from which the initial e-mail is sent will be used for all the further correspondence.
After manuscript receipt, the manuscript will be immediately registered and the corresponding author will receive a short e-mail confirming the receipt which will contain the registration number, the date the manuscript was received, and the fact that the manuscript was handed out to the subject editor (the specialized member of the Editorial Board). The Editor-in-chief or one of the deputy editors will hand the manuscript to the subject editors.
The initial responsibilities of the subject editors consist of verifying if the manuscript complies with the editing criteria.
– If the manuscript does not comply with the criteria, the subject editor will send a short email to the corresponding author, with the request to rewrite the manuscript according to the editorial criteria.
– If there are serious errors of content and/or editing, the manuscript will be rejected ab initio by the Editor-in-chief.
– If the manuscript complies from the beginning with the editing requirements, the subject editor chooses 2 peer reviewers (either from those already accredited by the journal or from a number of new suggestions made by the author, in which case he conveys the proposal/s in order to be sent the approval letter acknowledging the quality of official reviewer of the journal), and it is mandatory that one of them belongs to an academic site other than the authors of the manuscript.
Note: Peer reviewers will be randomly selected from the existing database or from the ones proposed by the authors.
In the case that the authors formulated any objections against particular reviewers, these objections will be respected by the editors.
The subject editor (or the editorial board at the request of the subject editor) sends by e-mail to the peer reviewer the letter of request (demanding a review within 2 weeks), together with the manuscript.
The reviewers’ decision (approval with no changes, approval with major/minor changes, rejection) will be immediately communicated by e-mail to the corresponding author by the subject editor (the message will be sent in Cc to firstname.lastname@example.org).
If the manuscript gets approval with the indication for changes, the anonymous comments of the reviewers will be sent together with the reviewers decision and a statement of the subject editor, which will be the synthesis of the reviewers' opinions.
The corresponding author must send the improved manuscript within 4 weeks (complying with the initial reviewers requests, mentioning the initial registration number of the manuscript followed by ".R1"), together with a letter (Word document or similar) as attachments to an e-mail where the corresponding author responds item by item to the comments of the reviewers (the mail is addressed to email@example.com), specifying the manner in which the manuscript was modified.
The subject editor will forward the answer to the reviewers. If they are satisfied with the corresponding author's answer, they will send the subject editor the decision of approval for publication of the improved manuscript (".R1").
If the reviewers consider the corresponding author's answer is only partially satisfactory, they will request an additional review of the manuscript (in which case the manuscript will receive the extension “.R2” ), the editing process following the same rules as in the case of the first revision.
If the peer reviewers consider that either on the first or the second revision, the corresponding author did not meet or poorly met the revision requests, they will deny the approval for publication, which will be communicated to the subject editor.
The decision for publication once taken by the reviewers, it will be communicated in editorial meeting (an e-mail message containing the final form of the manuscript and all the anonymous comments of the reviewers sent to all members of the editorial board that confirms that the attached article was accepted). During this meeting, the priority of the manuscript will be established, considering the following criteria:
- reviewers’ opinions;
- the degree of coverage for the different sections of the journal.