Policies & Peer Review Process


General Submission Rules

Anyone may submit an original article to be considered for publication in Advances in Clinical Medical Research and Healthcare Delivery (ACMRHD) provided he or she owns the copyright to the work or is authorized by the copyright owner to submit the article. Authors are the initial owners of the copyrights to their works (an exception in the non-academic world to this might exist if the authors have, as a condition of employment, agreed to transfer copyright to their employer). There are no fees to submit an article.

Submitted articles cannot have been previously published, nor be forthcoming in an archival journal or book. Please note: "publication" in a working-paper series does not constitute prior publication. In addition, by submitting material to ACMRHD, the author is stipulating that the material is not currently under review at another journal and that he or she will not submit the material to another journal until the completion of the ACMRHD editorial decision process. For those manuscripts that are based on material that may have been presented in abstract or poster form previously, please ensure that you are the copyright holder and can utilize the same material. If you are not the copyright holder, you will need the permission of the copyright holder to re-use text from the abstract or poster.

{ top }

Rights for Authors and ACMRHD

As further described in our Submission Agreement, in consideration for publication, the authors assign to ACMRHD all copyright in the article, subject to the expansive personal--use exceptions described below.

Attribution and Usage Policies

Reproduction, posting, transmission or other distribution or use of the article or any material therein, in any medium as permitted by a personal-use exemption or by written agreement of ACMRHD, requires credit to ACMRHD as copyright holder (e.g.,Advances in Clinical Medical Research and Healthcare Delivery © 2022).

Personal-use Exceptions

The following uses are always permitted to the author(s) and do not require further permission from ACMRHD provided the author does not alter the format or content of the articles, including the copyright notification:

  • Storage and back-up of the article on the author's computer(s) and digital media (e.g.,thumb drives, etc.), provided that the article stored is not readily accessible by persons other than the author(s);
  • Posting of the article on the author(s) personal website, provided that the website is non-commercial;
  • Posting of the article on the internet as part of a non-commercial open access institutional repository or other non-commercial open access publication site affiliated with the author(s)'s place of employment (e.g., a Phrenology professor at the University of Southern North Dakota can have her article appear in the University of Southern North Dakota's Department of Phrenology online publication series); and
  • Posting of the article on a non-commercial course website for a course being taught by the author at the university or college employing the author.

{ top }

Conflict of Interest

According the guidelines of the Association of American Medical Colleges, The Council of Science Editors and the World Association of Medical Editors, Conflict of Interest (COI) in scientific publications refers to "situations in which financial or other personal considerations may compromise or have the appearance of compromising, an investigator's professional judgment in conducting or reporting research."

When a researcher, author, editor, or reviewer has a financial/non-financial interest or belief that could affect his/her objectivity, or inappropriately influence his/her actions, a potential conflict of interest exists. Such relationships are also known as dual commitments, competing interests, or competing loyalties.

ACMRHD requires authors to state all conflicting interests in relation to their work. The manuscript must include a 'conflict of interest' section at the end of the manuscript listing all the financial and non-financial issues. Where authors have no conflicting interests, they should mention clearly with a statement such as, "I, < >, on behalf of all the co-authors declare that author(s) have no conflict of interest with this manuscript". The Editor-In-Chief may ask for further information regarding conflicting interests. During the Peer-Review process, if any editor or reviewer identify conflicting interests with the review, he/she should inform to the Journal Management Team immediately and their name will be excluded from the review team for that article.

Conflict of Interest relating to Financial Issues :

The conflicting interests related to financial issues include, but not limited to, following aspects:

Receiving reimbursements, fees, funding, or other monetary benefits from any organization or person that may in any way gain or lose financially from the publication of the manuscript, either now or in the future.

Receiving reimbursements, fees, funding, or other monetary benefits from any organization or person that holds or has applied for patents relating to the content of the manuscript.

Conflict of Interest relating to Non-Financial Issues:

The conflicting interests related to non-financial issues could include, but are not limited to, the following: Conflicts related to religion, to academic and intellectual interests or to personal opinion or ideologies.

Please note: Authors should ensure that publications are produced in a responsible and ethical manner. The authors working on any sponsored clinical trials or publications, should declare such works under conflict of Interest during submission.

The COI policies are formulated to ensure transparency and objectivity in the publications and Peer-Review process. If scholars are uncertain whether their concerns come under COI policies, please feel free to contact us at Advances@Rochesterregioinal.org.

{ top }

Human and Animal Rights

ACMRHD has formulated policies to ensure protection and proper use of animals and humans in all forms of research. It is mandatory for the authors reporting experiments with the involvement of animals and human subjects to adhere to following facets:

The authors should include a statement in the "Methods" section of the article that they have identified the related institutional and/or licensing committee and have taken approval from the committee for their experiments. They should also mention the address of the committee.

The authors should declare that they have conducted all experiments in accordance with relevant guidelines and regulations of the committee.

If an author performs experimental studies involving client-owned animals, he/she must present an acceptance document from the client about best practices in animal testing. Field studies and other non-experimental research on animals must observe institutional, national, or international guidelines, and wherever available should have been approved by an appropriate ethics committee.

The authors involved in research and experiments involving human subjects must confirm that informed consent was obtained from all participants and/or their legal guardians.

The U.S. Public Health Service's Policy on Humane Care and Use of Laboratory Animals (PHS policy) and the Guide for the Care and Use of Laboratory Animals describe general policies and procedures designed to ensure the humane and appropriate use of live vertebrate animals in all forms of medical research. ACMRHD finds the policies and procedures set forth in the PHS policy and the Guide for the Care and Use of Laboratory Animals to be both necessary and sufficient to ensure a high standard of animal care. The researchers are expected to conduct their animal research in compliance with PHS policy.

The Editor-In-Chief will evaluate the submitted manuscripts on animal well-being issues and if the research is found to be inconsistent with commonly accepted norms of using the animal and human subjects, the manuscript is liable to be rejected. The Editor-In-Chief also reserve the right to contact the approving committee for any further clarification.

Researchers note that they have a moral obligation towards the animals and human subjects they use for their research goals and they must treat them with compassion and consider their well-being while designing the projects.

{ top }

Informed Consent

Informed consent is required for any research paper to be published in ACMRHD if that research involves human participants. Informed Consent policy states that a participant in research must be informed about all aspects of the trial and the research should be carried out only when the participant voluntarily confirms his or her willingness to participate in a particular clinical trial and significance of the research for advancement of medical knowledge and social welfare. The concept of informed consent is embedded in the principles of Nuremberg Code, The Declaration of Helsinki and The Belmont Report.

Informed consent is an inevitable requirement prior to every research involving human beings as subjects for study. Policies regarding Informed Consent involves following postulates:

Human participants' names and other identifiers must be removed from all sections of the manuscript, including supplementary information. Informed consent letter must be attained for the publication of any other information that could lead to identification of a participant, such as clinical images and videos. In the methods section, the authors should include that informed consent to publish identifying information/images has been obtained. Please note that the use of colored bars/shapes to obscure the eyes/facial region of study participants is NOT an acceptable means of anonymization.

Research involving human subjects, human material, or human data, must have been performed in accordance with and must have been approved by an appropriate Institutional Review Board. A statement detailing this, including the name of the ethics committee must appear in all manuscripts reporting such research. If a study has been granted an exemption from requiring ethics approval, this should also be detailed in the manuscript. Further information and documentation to support this should be made available to the Editor-In-Chief on request. Manuscripts may be rejected if the Editor-In-Chief considers that the research has not been carried out within an appropriate ethical framework.

Authors reporting the use of a new procedure or tool in a clinical setting, for example as a technical advance or case report, must give a clear justification in the manuscript for why the new procedure or tool was deemed more appropriate than usual clinical practice to meet the patient's clinical need. Such justification is not required if the new procedure is already approved for clinical use at the authors' institution. In case of a novel procedure, authors are expected to obtain ethics committee approval and informed patient consent for any experimental use of a novel procedure or tool.

For all research involving human subjects, informed consent to participate in the study should be obtained from participants or their parent/ legal guardian in case the participant is minor and a statement to this effect should appear in the manuscript. A case report that does not include identifiable protected health information does not require written consent to be provided to the journal.

For all manuscripts that include details, images, or videos relating to individual participants, written informed consent for the publication of these must be obtained from the participants or their parent or legal guardian in case the participant is minor and a statement to this effect should appear in the manuscript.

All contributors who do not meet the criteria for authorship should be listed in an 'Acknowledgements' section. This section might include a person who provided purely technical help or writing assistance, or any sort of general support in performing research.

ACMRHD strictly follows COPE guidelines and requires written confirmation from all authors that they agree with any proposed changes in authorship of submitted manuscripts or published articles. The corresponding author should ensure that all authors confirm and agree with the proposed changes. The Editor-In-Chief will not be responsible to resolve authorship disputes. The authorship of a published article can only be amended through publication of a request letter.

Peer Review Policy and Process

To ensure the excellence and academic rigor of our journal, each submission undergoes peer review. This process assesses the scientific accuracy and ethical treatment of research participants. All manuscripts are peer reviewed according to the procedures described here.

A member of the Editorial Board screens all new submissions. Manuscripts are seldom worthy of acceptance at this stage. Submissions may be rejected because of methodological flaws, grammatical errors, poor English language, or because the subject matter is outside the aims and scope of the journal. The Editor will inform the author immediately if they decide to reject the manuscript.

If the manuscript passes this screening process, the Editor will assign it to at least two peer reviewers. If a member of the editorial board authors an article, that Editor is excluded from any phase of the peer review and decision-making process and another Editor is assigned to manage the submission.

With the exception of editorials, which do not undergo peer review, Advances in Clinical Medical Research and HealthCare Delivery utilizes a “double blind” review method where the reviewers and the authors are anonymous to each other throughout the process.

Whenever possible, Editors assign reviewers to a manuscript based on their stated or known area of expertise.

Reviewers are required to consider:

  • Originality of the subject
  • Methodological and ethical soundness
  • Presentation of results
  • How results support the author’s conclusions
  • Appropriate review and reference of previous relevant work
  • If the work meaningfully adds to the existing body of knowledge

Reviewers are not required to correct language issues but are welcome to offer feedback that will improve the language, grammar, and style of the manuscript.

Before final acceptance, a member of the Editorial Board will review grammar and style, and may apply corrections at this point. Additionally, all manuscripts undergo plagiarism screening by the Editorial Board before final acceptance; we do not expect peer reviewers to perform this action.

The typical time for the first round of peer review is about 30 days. This is dependent on the availability and responsiveness of reviewers. If the reviewers return conflicting recommendations, or a report is long overdue, the Editor may request a further peer review opinion.

In rare instances where it is difficult to find a second reviewer for a manuscript, the Editor will determine if the one review is sufficient and make a decision to accept, reject, or request revision.

A final decision to accept or reject the manuscript is sent to the author along with the verbatim comments and recommendations made by the reviewers. Reviewers may also make confidential comments that will only be read by the Editor.

The Editor, on the basis of the advice of the peer reviewers, is responsible for the final decision to accept or reject the article.