• Current Progress in Medical Sciences® operates a single-blind peer-review system, where the reviewers are aware of the names and affiliations of the authors, but the reviewer reports provided to authors are anonymous. The benefit of single-blind peer review is that it is the traditional model of peer review that many reviewers are comfortable with, and it facilitates a dispassionate critique of a manuscript.

• If you are intersted in becoming a Reviewer for Medicine please submit your current CV from your institutional email to pubacademia.int@gmail.com.

• If you are a current Academic Editor or Reviewer and want to refer a collegue, please send us email to pubacademia.int@gmail.com.

• Reviewers must indicate their areas of expertise when registering with the Editorial Management system.

• Reviewer invitations are sent from the Editorial Manager submission system by email. To accept or decline invitations use the links in the email.

• If you are able to review, please select the assignment within five (5) days. If we do not receive a reply within that timeframe we may assign another reviewer.

• If you receive an invitation and cannot accept the review please select ‘Decline to Review’ as soon as possible so we can select another reviewer for the manuscript. In the response field, please include the following, if possible:
A reason for declining the review
Suggested colleague(s) qualified to review this paper with contact information

• All reviews on a manuscript must be entered into the Editorial Manager submission system. Reviews should not be sent to the editorial office, however, if you have a question regarding a review please contact us at pubacademia.int@gmail.com.

• We ask reviewers to try and complete a review within fifteen (15) days after accepting the review. Please notify the editorial office if you need more time or cannot complete the review.

• When submitting a review, you should disclose if you have a conflict of interest. You should not accept a review if there is a potential conflict of interest on a paper. This could include any of the following: Previous knowledge of the study, Collaboration with the corresponding or secondary authors, Potential to profit from the work financially.

• The unpublished manuscript is a privileged document and reviewers should hold each manuscript in strict confidence and not share information with any outside parties unless previously agreed upon. Reviewers should not cite the work and refrain from using the information to advance their own research before publication.

• Reviewers remain anonymous in the peer review process for Current Progress in Medical Sciences® and in the publication of the article. There is an option to reveal your identity to the author in the reviewer form, however, this is optional and your name or review will not be published with the manuscript.

• The goal of Current Progress in Medical Sciences®’s review process is to establish an article’s technical, scientific and ethical validity. Novelty and potential for impact are not to be considered when assessing a manuscript or providing an editorial recommendation.

• Academic Editors are asked to seek review from at least two reviewers on any given manuscript. Please keep in mind that Academic Editors make the final decision on a manuscript. Although the final decision may disagree with the decision of the reviewer, the comments and assessment were carefully taken into consideration.

• Reviewers will be asked to respond to the following questions before submitting a review:

– Is the manuscript technically sound, and the data support the conclusion?
– Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?
– Does the manuscript adhere to standards in this field for data availability?
– Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?
– Comments to the Author

• Reviewers should also keep in mind the following criteria while assessing a manuscript:

– The study and results are original research
– The paper has performed experiments with the highest ethical standards
– The paper has not been previously published in another journal
– The paper adheres to the EQUATOR Network reporting guidelines

• A good review has two goals: the primary goal is to help the handling editor make a decision about the manuscript and the secondary goal is to help the author understand how to improve their work.

• Keep in mind that you are the authors ally and aim to promote effective and accurate scientific communication. Below are a few helpful tips:

– Be Constructive: Stating that a section needs work may not be helpful to the author, add specifics about what could be altered to improve the section or manuscript.
– Be Concise: While you should add detail to each comment, try to be clear about what you are looking for on that given theme
– Be Polite and Conversational: The authors are looking for helpful suggestions to improve their work, please be polite and refrain from negative comments, as it is more helpful to suggest improvements
– Identify Some Strengths: It is important to let the author know what should not be changed as well, this way they save time in the revision process

• Reviewers have the option to send comments to the Editor using the “Confidential Comments to the Editor” field when reviewing a manuscript. These comments are optional and are to be used, but not limited to, if you have any concerns about either the manuscript or your suitability to review that you wish to convey to the Editor in confidence.

• After an author submits a revision, the Academic Editor will often ask the original reviewer(s) to evaluate the author’s revised submission. If a reviewer asks for revisions, we expect the original reviewers to be available to assess their required revisions.

• The final decision on a manuscript is made by the Academic Editor. The Academic Editor will use reviewers’ comments and decisions, the criteria for acceptance, and their own editorial assessment of a paper to make their final decision.