Peer Review Policy

Initial manuscript evaluation

All manuscripts judged to be of potential interest to our readership are first checked in our submission office for the mandatory items (compliance with submission guidelines, editorial policies and ethical standards) and the authors are reminded to correct or add the missing material. After completion of internal checks, each submission is assessed by the handling editor. Handling editors guide the peer-review process for manuscripts within their areas of expertise with the help of reviewers who are well qualified and up-to-date on the subject matter and/or methodology. To save time for authors and peer-reviewers, only those papers that seem most likely to meet our editorial criteria are sent for formal review. The handling editor will evaluate each manuscript for proper formatting and, in case of unoriginality, scientific insufficiency, poor language or impropriety for the scope of our journal, may reject the manuscript at this stage. Authors of manuscripts rejected at this stage will usually be informed within two weeks of receipt.

Our journal uses double-blind review, which means that both the reviewer and author identities are concealed from the reviewers, and vice versa, throughout the review process. All articles, except for editorials and some correspondence articles, are externally peer reviewed before a final decision is made about acceptance for publication. Original, scientifically sufficient and well written manuscripts that meet the scope of our journal are passed on to two expert referees for ‘double blind’ reviewing within 10 days .

The manuscript considered for submission to Zdravniški Vestnik should not be published or be in the process of submission to any other journal. All authors have to contribute to the creation of the manuscript and agree with the written content and submission to Zdravniški Vestnik. Potential conflicts of any of the authors of the manuscript interest must clearly be stated at the end of the manuscript (Conflicts of Interest section).

All editors, reviewers and authors shall adhere to Zdravniski vestnik’s editorial policies and best practices in line with COPE Core Practices  to maintain high standards of peer-review.

Peer reviews are not paid for.


The Editor is evaluating the following queries:

  • Is the manuscript understandably written?
  • Is the manuscript linguistically correct?
  • Does the manuscript carry a clear message?
  • Is the manuscript written according to the journal’s guidelines for authors?
  • Research article: introduction, methods, results, discussion, conclusion, and references.
  • Review article: introduction, body of the manuscript, conclusion, and references.
  • Case report/series: introduction, case report, discussion, conclusion, and references.
  • Has the author cited Slovenian publications that are referring to the content of the manuscript?
  • Does the manuscript need the ethics committee approval and/or the written consent of the patients?
  • 'The study design was approved by the local/national Medical Ethics Committee (number, date).' should be written at the end of Material and Methods section.
  • 'The patient gave informed consent for the publication of his/her case.' or 'The parent of a case patient signed the informed consent form for the publication.' should be written at the end of Conclusion section.
  • 'The authors acknowledge the financial support from the 'name of funding agency' (research core funding No... ).' should be written in the Acknowledgements if the manuscript has been financed from a programme/project
  • Is the manuscript checked in helioblast.heliotext.com and/or Google?
  • Is the manuscript so important that it deserves an editorial and who is the proposed writer of it?
  • If the first two authors wish a shared or equivalent authorship, this is assigned at their names and followed by the text: These authors contributed equally to this manuscript.


Reviewer report

Reviewers are selected according to their expertise from our referee database. Each manuscript is reviewed by at least two independent referees. The original scientific manuscripts are compulsorily reviewed by a statistician, the meta-analyses by a statistician and a librarian; if the authors of the paper are not physicians (especially the field of Biomedical Engineering), the manuscript is compulsorily reviewed by a medical doctor. Each manuscript is reviewed by a technical editor who is included as a referee in the editorial procedure to check the adequacy of graphic elements. The author’s suggestions for referees are welcome and may be used. Referees are asked to evaluate the following points of the manuscript:

  • Does the manuscript add enough to existing knowledge?
  • Is the manuscript comprehensibly written?
  • Does the manuscript have a clear message (idea)?
  • Is the manuscript written in accordance with the recommendations of our journal?
  • Is a general medical journal appropriate for the publication of this manuscript?
  • Did the author also quote Slovenian publications that relate to the content of the manuscript?

For the original manuscripts the referees evaluate also:

  • Is the problem posed in the manuscript appropriate?
  • Does it bring anything new?
  • Is the design of the research appropriate to the problem?
  • Are the selected methods appropriate?
  • Are statistical methods correct?
  • Does the manuscript need an extra statistic overview?
  • Do the results correspond to the conclusions?
  • Is the literature up-to-date and appropriate?

Language correction is not a necessary part of the peer review process, although the referees are encouraged to suggest corrections of language and style to the manuscript. After acceptance, the manuscript is sent to the Slovene/English language editor for linguistic and stylistic correction. In rare cases, the manuscript may be returned to the author for a full linguistic and stylistic revision.


How long does the review process take?

The time required for the review process is dependent on the response of the referees. For our Journal, the typical time for the first round of the refereeing process is approximately 6 weeks, with a maximum of three months. Should the referees’ reports contradict one another or a report is unnecessarily delayed, a further expert opinion may be sought. In the rare cases when it is extremely difficult to find a second referee to review the manuscript, whilst the one referee’s extant report has thoroughly convinced the handling Editor, a decision to accept, reject or ask the author for a revision may be made, at the handling Editor’s discretion, on the basis of only one referee report. The handling Editor’s decision will be sent to the author with the referees’ recommendations, usually including the latter’s verbatim comments. As a rule, revised manuscripts are sent to the initial referees for checking; these may then request further revision.


Final report and revision

A final decision to accept, with minor / major revision, or reject the manuscript will be sent to the author by the Editor along with the referees’ recommendations and comments within 7 days of their receipt.

Authors should send minor revisions in 30 days and major revisions in 60 days after having received final decision. The Editor sends an email to the authors in the case of delay. In case the authors submit the revision more than 90 days after having received the decision, we treat it as a new submission. If the author does not upload a revised manuscript before 90 days after the editorial notice, the Editor informs the author about the time expiration and the manuscript is archived.
Referees advise the Editor responsible for the final decision to accept or reject the manuscript.

In case of conflicting reviews, the Editor includes the third referee or the manuscript is discussed at the monthly meeting of the Editors. The final decision is made in agreement with the Editor-in-Chief.

 

Appeals

Any appeal on an editorial decision or complaint during peer-review must be submitted by email to vestnik@szd.si. The editors may grant or deny the appeal, and their decision is final. Appeals must be submitted within 30 days of the date the decision was rendered.