About the Journal
Peer Review Process
The practice of peer review is to ensure that manuscript is published. It is a process at the heart of good scholarly publishing and is carried out on all reputable journals. Our referees play a vital role in maintaining the high standards of Acta Bio Medica and manuscripts are peer reviewed following the procedure outlined below.
Special Issues have different peer review procedures involving, for example, Guest Editors and/or Advisory Editors. Authors contributing to these projects may receive full details of the peer review process on request from the editorial office.
Initial manuscript evaluation
All new submissions are screened for completeness and adherence to the Guide for Authors. Those that pass are then assigned to a Senior Editor for consideration for sending for peer review. Authors of manuscripts rejected at initial evaluation stage will normally be informed within 1 week of receipt.
Senior Editor evaluation
When assigned a new submission, the Senior Editor will decide if it warrants peer review or if it should be rejected without review. Manuscripts rejected at this stage are insufficiently original, have serious conceptual and/or methodological flaws, have poor grammar or English language, or are outside the aims and scope of the journal.
Authors of manuscripts rejected at this stage will normally be informed within 10 days of assignment to the senior editor.
Feedback is provided by the Senior Editor for all manuscripts rejected without review and, where possible, suggestions are made on other suitable publication outlets.
Those manuscripts deemed suitable for peer review are passed to at least 2 expert referees for review.
Type of peer review
Acta Bio Medica employs double-blind review, where both the referee and the author remain anonymous throughout the process.
How the reviewers are selected
Reviewers are matched to the paper according to their expertise, and our referee database is constantly being updated. We welcome suggestions for reviewers from authors, though these recommendations may or may not be used.
How long does the review process take?
Typically the manuscript will be reviewed within 80 days. Should the reviewers' reports contradict one another or a report is unduly delayed, a further expert opinion will be sought. If necessary, revised manuscripts may be returned to the initial reviewers, usually within 1 month. Reviewers and Senior Editors may request more than one revision of a manuscript, and alternative reviewers may also be invited to review the manuscript at any time.
The final decision and time to publication
The Senior Editor is responsible for the decision to reject or recommend the manuscript for publication. This decision will be sent to the author along with any recommendations made by the referees.
Please note we may forward accepted papers for legal review if appropriate.
Instructions to submit a revised manuscript
When revising your manuscript, please show corrections by using track changes or highlighting them in red color. Be sure to respond to all reviewer comments including also a letter with your comments about.
You should upload two files:
- Revised manuscript file with changes highlighted or in red colour. In Word you can use Track Changes, then Highlight Changes or simply Underline your changes or use the red colour. Use a short file name, such as revised (the file extension should be added automatically), for your new manuscript file.
- File containing response to reviewers.
Policies on Conflict of Interest, Human and Animal rights, and Informed Consent
Acta Bio Medica requires authors to declare all competing interests in relation to their work. All submitted manuscripts must include a ‘competing interests’ section at the end of the manuscript listing all competing interests (financial and non-financial). Where authors have no competing interests, the statement should read “The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.” Editors may ask for further information relating to competing interests. Editors and reviewers are also required to declare any competing interests and will be excluded from the peer review process if a competing interest exists.
Competing interests may be financial or non-financial. A competing interest exists when the authors’ interpretation of data or presentation of information may be influenced by their personal or financial relationship with other people or organizations. Authors should disclose any financial competing interests but also any non-financial competing interests that may cause them embarrassment if they were to become public after the publication of the article.
Financial competing interests include (but are not limited to):
– Receiving reimbursements, fees, funding, or salary from an organization that may in any way gain or lose financially from the publication of the article, either now or in the future.
– Holding stocks or shares in an organization that may in any way gain or lose financially from the publication of the article, either now or in the future.
– Holding, or currently applying for, patents relating to the content of the manuscript.
– Receiving reimbursements, fees, funding, or salary from an organization that holds or has applied for patents relating to the content of the manuscript.
– Non-financial competing interests
– Non-financial competing interests include (but are not limited to) political, personal, religious, ideological, academic, and intellectual competing interests. If, after reading these guidelines, you are unsure whether you have a competing interest, please contact the Editor.
Authors from pharmaceutical companies, or other commercial organizations that sponsor clinical trials, should declare these as competing interests on submission. They should also adhere to the Good Publication Practice guidelines for pharmaceutical companies, which are designed to ensure that publications are produced in a responsible and ethical manner. The guidelines also apply to any companies or individuals that work on industry-sponsored publications, such as freelance writers, contract research organizations and communications companies.
Human and animal rights
All research must have been carried out within an appropriate ethical framework. If there is suspicion that work has not taken place within an appropriate ethical framework, Editors will follow the Misconduct policy and may reject the manuscript, and/or contact the author(s)’ institution or ethics committee. On rare occasions, if the Editor has serious concerns about the ethics of a study, the manuscript may be rejected on ethical grounds, even if approval from an ethics committee has been obtained.
Research involving human subjects, human material, or human data, must have been performed in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki and must have been approved by an appropriate ethics committee. A statement detailing this, including the name of the ethics committee and the reference number where appropriate, 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 (including the name of the ethics committee that granted the exemption). Further information and documentation to support this should be made available to Editors on request. Manuscripts may be rejected if the Editor considers that the research has not been carried out within an appropriate ethical framework. In rare cases, Editors may contact the ethics committee for further information.
If a study has not been submitted to an ethics committee prior to commencing, retrospective ethics approval usually cannot be obtained and it may not be possible to consider the manuscript for peer review. How to proceed in such cases is at the Editor(s)’ discretion.
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. Authors will be expected to have obtained ethics committee approval and informed patient consent for any experimental use of a novel procedure or tool where a clear clinical advantage based on clinical need was not apparent before treatment.
For all research involving human subjects, informed consent to participate in the study should be obtained from participants (or their parent or guardian in the case of children under 16) and a statement to this effect should appear in the manuscript.
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 the case of children under 16) and a statement to this effect should appear in the manuscript. If the participant has died, then consent for publication must be sought from the next of kin of the participant. This documentation must be made available to Editors on request, and will be treated confidentially. In cases where images are entirely unidentifiable and there are no details on individuals reported within the manuscript, consent for publication of images may not be required. The final decision on whether consent to publish is required lies with the Editor.
Experimental research on vertebrates or any regulated invertebrates must comply with institutional, national, or international guidelines, and where available should have been approved by an appropriate ethics committee. The Basel Declaration outlines fundamental principles to adhere to when conducting research in animals and the International Council for Laboratory Animal Science (ICLAS) has also published ethical guidelines.
A statement detailing compliance with relevant guidelines (e.g. the revised Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 in the UK and Directive 2010/63/EU in Europe) and/or ethical approval (including the name of the ethics committee and the reference number where appropriate) must be included in the manuscript. If a study has been granted an exemption from requiring ethics approval, this should also be detailed in the manuscript (including the name of the ethics committee that granted the exemption and the reasons for the exemption). The Editor will take account of animal welfare issues and reserves the right to reject a manuscript, especially if the research involves protocols that are inconsistent with commonly accepted norms of animal research. In rare cases, Editors may contact the ethics committee for further information.
For experimental studies involving client-owned animals, authors must also document informed consent from the client or owner and adherence to a high standard (best practice) of veterinary care.
Field studies and other non-experimental research on animals must comply with institutional, national, or international guidelines, and where available should have been approved by an appropriate ethics committee. A statement detailing compliance with relevant guidelines and/or appropriate permissions or licences must be included in the manuscript. We recommend that authors comply with the Convention on the Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora and the IUCN Policy Statement on Research Involving Species at Risk of Extinction.
Authors are strongly encouraged to conform to the Animal Research: Reporting In Vivo Experiments (ARRIVE) guidelines, developed by the National Centre for the Replacement, Refinement and Reduction of Animals in Research (NC3Rs), for reporting animal studies.
For studies reporting livestock trials with production, health and food-safety outcomes, authors are encouraged to adhere to the Reporting Guidelines for Randomized Controlled Trials in Livestock and Food Safety (REFLECT).
Advertising Polices for Print and Web Publications
The mission of Mattioli 1885 is to provide a fast, reliable and thought-provoking media outlet to the world medical communities in both basic research and clinical practice, with timely coverage of diverse medical disciplinary topics.
The nature of all our journals are open access, which means all the contents of the journals are accessible freely to all viewers from every part of the world as long as they have internet accessibility, our viewers are from all over the world.
In addition to the contemporary online editions of journals, we also have print editions of journals circulating all over the world, this traditional media platform can meet different needs of our customers.
All advertising contents should be clearly indicated as an advertisement, they should not be confused with the editorial contents and articles. The editorial policy and publishing policy are not affected by any advertisers.
Our rates for advertising are very competitive, we can offer you prime advertising space for a very reasonable price. Our professional team can help you in each steps of advertising and strives to meet your need.
Submission of AD
Your may submit your advertisement in acceptable formats, or we can design your AD in an affordable rates, these rates are decided on a case-by-case basis.
Terms of advertising
All advertising contents are subject to the approval of the publisher. Advertised products should be legal and compliant with any national or international laws which may apply. AD placement or page/webpage positions can be requested but will not be guaranteed. Mattioli 1885 is not responsible for errors in advertisements following proof approval or self-submission.
The statements and opinions contained in the advertisement are solely those of the advertisers and do not necessarily reflect those of the editors or the publisher. The appearance of advertisements in the journals is not a warranty, endorsement or approval of the products or services advertised or of their safety. The editors and the Publisher disclaim responsibility for any injury to persons or property resulting from any ideas or productions referred to in the articles or advertisements.
ICMJE best practice standards
Mattioli 1885 requires the Authors and Editors of its journals to follow the recommendations by the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE), which reviews best practice and ethical standards in the conduct and reporting of research and other material published in medical journals. It is Mattioli 1885’ conviction that following these recommendations supports the accurate, clear, reproducible, and unbiased creation and distribution of scientific journal articles. Please download or review these recommendations here.
Corrections and retractions
Rarely, it may be necessary for Mattioli 1885 to publish [corrections] to, or [retractions] of, articles published in its journals, so as to maintain the integrity of the academic record.
In line with BioMed Central's [Permanency] policy, [corrections] to, or [retractions] of, published articles will be made by publishing an Erratum or a Retraction article, without altering the original article in any way other than to add a prominent link to the Erratum/Retraction article. The original article remains in the public domain and the subsequent Erratum or Retraction will be widely indexed. In the exceptional event that material is considered to infringe certain rights or is defamatory, we may have to remove that material from our site and archive sites.
It may be possible for minor corrections to published articles to be made by the original author(s) posting a comment on the published article. This would only be appropriate where the changes do not affect the results or conclusions of the article. See our [Comments] policy for further information on posting comments.
Changes to published articles that affect the interpretation and conclusion of the article, but do not fully invalidate the article, will, at the Editor(s)’ discretion, be corrected via publication of an Erratum that is indexed and linked to the original article. Changes in authorship of published articles are corrected via an Erratum..
On rare occasions, when the scientific information in an article is substantially undermined, it may be necessary for published articles to be retracted. Mattioli 1885 will follow the COPE guidelines in such cases. Retraction articles are indexed and linked to the original article.