Editorial Policies

Focus and Scope

Sanamed medical journal is an independent international, peer-reviewed Open Access journal which publishes papers from all fields of medicine, dentistry, pharmacology and pharmaceutical sciences. The journal is published by the Association of medical doctors "Sanamed" Novi Pazar - Serbia, a non-profit organization of doctors.

The journal is based on independent and impartial double-blind review principles. This journal publishes: original articles, case reports, literature reviews, medical history articles, physician articles, book reviews, letters to the editor, and other medical information. Only unpublished papers that are not peer-reviewed for publication elsewhere may be submitted. Sanamed journal does not accept multiple applications.

Sanamed journal is published in electronic and printed format, three times a year.

 

Section Policies

A WORD FROM THE GUEST EDITORS

Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Unchecked Peer Reviewed

A WORD FROM THE EDITOR

Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Unchecked Peer Reviewed

GUEST EDITORS IN THIS ISSUE

Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed

ORIGINAL ARTICLE

Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed

PROFESSIONAL ARTICLE

Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed

CASE REPORT

Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed

REVIEW ARTICLE

Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed

Članci

Uređivačka politika

Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed

Editor in chief

Editors
  • Avdo Ceranic
Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed

LIST OF REVIEWERS IN 2015

Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed

DOWNLOAD

Checked Open Submissions Unchecked Indexed Unchecked Peer Reviewed

CORRECTION

Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed

RETRACTION NOTE

Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed

SEMINAR FOR PHYSICIANS

Editors
  • Dzenana Detanac
Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed

LETTER TO THE EDITOR

Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed

COMMENTARY

Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed

PERSONAL VIEW/OPINION

Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed

HISTORY OF MEDICINE

Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed
 

Publication Frequency

The journal is published both in Electronic and Print format, three times a year.

 

Open Access Policy

JournalSanamedis published under an Open Access licence. All its content is available free of charge. Users can read, download, copy, distribute, print, search the full text of articles, as well as to establish HTML links to them, without having to seek the consent of the author or publisher.

The right to use content without consent does not release the users from the obligation to give the credit to thejournaland its content in a manner described underLicensing.

 

Plagiarism policy

Once a manuscript is submitted to Journal, the editorial office conducts a preliminary check with respect to plagiarism. The authors should ensure that they write the entire manuscript themselves, and if the authors have used the research results and/or words of others it has to be appropriately cited or quoted. Plagiarism in all its forms constitutes unethical publishing behavior and is unacceptable. Papers found with such problems are rejected.

All the submitted manuscripts will be checked for potential plagiarism by iThenticate Plagiarism Detection Software.

If a published manuscript, which passed the initial plagiarism check, subsequently found to be plagiarized will be subjected to ICMJE’s policy of publication of correction, republication or retraction depending on the extent of misconduct.

 

Publication Ethics and Publication Malpractice Statement

Publication decisions: The editor is responsible for deciding which of the articles submitted to the journal should be published. The editor may confer with other editors or reviewers in making this decision.

Fair play:  An editor at any time evaluate manuscripts for their intellectual content without regard to race, gender, sexual orientation, religious belief, ethnic origin, citizenship, or political philosophy of the authors.

Confidentiality: The editor and any editorial staff must not disclose any information about a submitted manuscript to anyone other than the corresponding author, reviewers, potential reviewers, other editorial advisers, and the publisher, as appropriate.

Disclosure and conflicts of interest: Unpublished materials disclosed in a submitted manuscript must not be used in an editor's own research without the express written consent of the author.

Duties of Authors

Reporting standards: Authors of reports of original research should present an accurate account of the work performed as well as an objective discussion of its significance. Underlying data should be represented accurately in the paper. A paper should contain sufficient detail and references to permit others to replicate the work. Fraudulent or knowingly inaccurate statements constitute unethical behavior and are unacceptable.

Originality and Plagiarism: The authors should ensure that they have written entirely original works, and if the authors have used the work and/or words of others that this has been appropriately cited or quoted.

Multiple, Redundant or Concurrent Publication: An author should not, in general, publish manuscripts describing essentially the same research in more than one journal or primary publication. Submitting the same manuscript to more than one journal concurrently constitutes unethical publishing behavior and is unacceptable.

Acknowledgment of Sources: Proper acknowledgment of the work of others must always be given. Authors should cite publications that have been influential in determining the nature of the reported work.

Authorship of the Paper: Authorship should be limited to those who have made a significant contribution to the conception, design, execution, or interpretation of the reported study. All those who have made significant contributions should be listed as co-authors. Where there are others who have participated in certain substantive aspects of the research project, they should be acknowledged or listed as contributors.

The corresponding author should ensure that all appropriate co-authors and no inappropriate co-authors are included on the paper and that all co-authors have seen and approved the final version of the paper and have agreed to its submission for publication.

Disclosure and Conflicts of Interest: All authors should disclose in their manuscript any financial or other substantive conflicts of interest that might be construed to influence the results or interpretation of their manuscript. All sources of financial support for the project should be disclosed.

Fundamental errors in published works: When an author discovers a significant error or inaccuracy in his/her own published work, it is the author’s obligation to promptly notify the journal editor or publisher and cooperate with the editor to retract or correct the paper.

 

Peer Review Process

Once a manuscript is submitted, it is assigned to an Editor most appropriate to handle it, based on the subject of the manuscript and the availability of the Editors. If the Editor determines that the manuscript is not of sufficient quality to go through the normal review process or if the subject of the manuscript is not appropriate to the journal scope, the Editor rejects the manuscript with no further processing.

If the Editor determines that the submitted manuscript is of sufficient quality and falls within the scope of the journal, he/she assigns the manuscript to a minimum of 2 and a maximum of 5 external reviewers for peer-review. The reviewers submit their reports on the manuscripts along with their recommendation of one of the following actions to the Editor:

  • Accept submission (Publish Unaltered)
  • Revisions required (Consider after Minor Changes)
  • Resubmit for review (Consider after Major Changes)
  • Decline submission (Reject: Manuscript is flawed or not sufficiently novel)

When all reviewers have submitted their reports, the Editor can make one of the following decisions: Publish Unaltered, Consider after Minor Changes, Consider after Major Changes, Reject. This decision is usually made within 30 days from the submission date.

If the Editor recommends "Publish Unaltered," the manuscript is accepted for publication. The manuscript is then assigned a DOI number.

If the Editor recommends "Consider after Minor Changes," the authors are notified to prepare and submit a final copy of their manuscript with the required minor changes suggested by the reviewers. The Editor reviews the revised manuscript after the minor changes have been made by the authors. Once the Editor is satisfied with the final manuscript, the manuscript can be accepted. The revised manuscript has to be submitted within two weeks. 

 If the Editor recommends "Consider after Major Changes," the recommendation is communicated to the authors. The authors are expected to revise their manuscripts in accordance with the changes recommended by the reviewers and to submit their revised manuscript within three months. Submission later than that will be regarded as a new submission that will go through the complete review process from the beginning. If you think you are unable to meet the deadline, please notify the Editorial Office.

If the Editor recommends rejecting the manuscript, the rejection is immediate. Also, if two of the reviewers recommend rejecting the manuscript, the rejection is immediate. The editorial workflow gives the Editors the authority in rejecting any manuscript because of the inappropriateness of its subject, lack of quality, or incorrectness of its results. The Editor cannot assign himself/herself as an external reviewer of the manuscript.

The peer-review process is double-blinded, i.e., the reviewers do not know who the authors of the manuscript are and the authors do not have access to the information of who the peer-reviewers are.

DUTIES OF REVIEWERS

Any selected referee who feels unqualified to review the research reported in a manuscript or knows that its prompt review will be impossible should notify the editors and excuse himself/herself from the review process. The paper will be immediately sent to another qualified reviewer.

Any manuscript received for review must be treated as confidential document. It must not be shown to or discussed with others except as authorized by the editors.

Peer-reviews should be conducted objectively. Personal criticism of the author is inappropriate. Reviewers should express their views clearly with supporting arguments.

Reviewers should identify relevant published work that has not been cited by the authors. Any statement that an observation, derivation, or argument had been previously reported should be accompanied by the relevant citation. Reviewers should also call to the editors' attention any substantial similarity or overlap between the manuscript under consideration and any other published paper of which they have personal knowledge.

Disclosure and Conflict of Interest
Unpublished materials disclosed in a submitted manuscript must not be used in a reviewer's own research without the express written consent of the author. Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer-review must be kept confidential and not used for personal advantage. Reviewers should not consider manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies, or institutions connected to the papers.

 

 

Disclosure of potential conflicts of interest

Authors must disclose all relationships or interests that could have direct or potential influence or impart bias on the work. Although an author may not feel there is any conflict, the disclosure of relationships and interests provides a more complete and transparent process, leading to an accurate and objective assessment of the work. Awareness of real or perceived conflicts of interest is a perspective to which the readers are entitled. This is not meant to imply that a financial relationship with an organization that sponsored the research or compensation received for consultancy work is inappropriate.

Also, interests that go beyond financial interests and compensation (non-financial interests) that may be important to readers should be disclosed. These may include but are not limited to personal relationships or competing interests directly or indirectly tied to this research, or professional interests or personal beliefs that may influence your research. The corresponding author collects the conflict of interest disclosure forms from all authors. In author collaborations where formal agreements for representation allow it, it is sufficient for the corresponding author to sign the disclosure form on behalf of all authors.

 

Research involving human participants or animals

Statement of Human Rights When reporting studies that involve human participants, authors should include a statement that the studies have been approved by the appropriate institutional and/or national research ethics committee and have been performed in accordance with the ethical standards as laid down in the 1964 Declaration of Helsinki and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards. If doubt exists whether the research was conducted in accordance with the 1964 Helsinki Declaration or comparable standards, the authors must explain the reasons for their approach, and demonstrate that the independent ethics committee or institutional review board explicitly approved the doubtful aspects of the study.

 

The welfare of animals used for research must be respected. When reporting experiments on animals, authors should indicate whether the international, national, and/or institutional guidelines for the care and use of animals have been followed, and that the studies have been approved by a research ethics committee at the institution or practice at which the studies were conducted (where such a committee exists).

 

Corrections and Retractions

Corrections are published upon request and after editorial review. Retractions are published upon request of authors or their institutions and may also be published by the Journal following a determination of scientific misconduct. Notes of Concern are published in response to editorial concerns relating to scientific or publishing misconduct by authors or reviewers or to alert the scientific community of an ongoing investigation.

 

 

Criteria for acceptance

Submitted manuscripts may be rejected without detailed comments after an initial review by the editorial board if the manuscripts are considered inappropriate or of insufficient scientific priority for publication in Sanamed. All other manuscripts undergo a complete review. Criteria for acceptance include originality, the validity of data, clarity of writing, strength of the conclusions, and the potential importance of the work in a field of sciences. Submitted manuscripts will not be reviewed if they do not conform to standard English usage and the Instructions for authors.

 

AUTHORSHIP CRITERIA

According to ICMJE, authorship is based on the following criteria:

  • Substantial contributions to the conception or design of the work; or the acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data for the work
  • Drafting the work or revising it critically for important intellectual content
  • Final approval of the version to be published
  • Agreement to be accountable for all aspects of the work in ensuring that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work are appropriately investigated and resolved.

In addition to being accountable for the parts of the work he or she has done, an author should be able to identify which co-authors are responsible for specific other parts of the work. In addition, authors should have confidence in the integrity of the contributions of their co-authors.

All those designated as authors should meet all four criteria for authorship, and all who meet the four criteria should be identified as authors. Those who do not meet all four criteria should be acknowledged

The corresponding author is the one individual who takes primary responsibility for communication with the journal during the manuscript submission, peer review, and publication process.

 

REVENUE SOURCES

Sanamed journal accepts revenue from a variety of sources to ensure broad and affordable access while maintaining high quality standards and complete editorial independence. Sources of revenue include subscriptions from institutions and individuals for print editions of journals; donations; and author fees

 

Advertising

If you are interested in advertising any of your products, services and/or offers, we are providing you with the following options in our Journal:

FULL A4 PAPER SIZE (price in dinars)

 

INDIVIDUAL
(for a single issue)

ANNUAL
(for 3 issues)

Black-and-white advertisement

20,000

40,000

Color advertisement

25,000

60,000

 

Advertisers are entitled to free annual subscription.

For further information, please contact the Editorial Office at email sanamednp2006@gmail.com

 

Complaints process

This procedure applies to complaints that relate to content, procedures or policies that are the responsibility of Sanamed  journal  or our editorial staff. Complaints may provide an opportunity and a spur for improvement, and we aim to respond quickly, courteously, and constructively.

Complaints should be directly emailed to sanamednp2006@gmail.com, and will be dealt with confidentially

 

Consent for publication

For all manuscripts that include details, images, or videos relating to an individual person, written informed consent for the publication of these details must be obtained from that person (or their parent or legal guardian in the case of children under 18). If the person has died, consent for publication must be obtained from their next of kin. The manuscript must include a statement that written informed consent for publication was obtained. 

Authors can use the Sanamed consent form to obtain consent for publication, or a consent form from their own institution or region if appropriate. The consent form must state that the details/images/videos will be freely available on the internet and may be seen by the general public. The consent form must be made available to the Editor if requested, 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.

 

Editor Roles and Responsibilities

Editors have responsibilities toward the authors who provide the content of the journals, the  peer reviewers who comment on the suitability of manuscripts for publication, the journal’s readers and the scientific community and the public as a whole. 

Editor Responsibilities toward Authors

  • Providing guidelines to authors for preparing and submitting manuscripts
  • Providing a clear statement of the Journal’s policies on authorship criteria
  • Treating all authors with fairness, courtesy, objectivity, honesty, and transparency
  • Protecting the confidentiality of every author’s work
  • Making editorial decisions with reasonable speed and communicating them in a clear and constructive manner
  • Being vigilant in avoiding the possibility of editors and/or referees delaying a manuscript for suspect reasons
  • Establishing clear guidelines for authors regarding acceptable practices for sharing experimental materials and information, particularly those required to replicate the research, before and after publication
  • Establishing a procedure for reconsidering editorial decisions
  • Describing, implementing, and regularly reviewing policies for handling ethical issues and allegations or findings of misconduct by authors and anyone involved in the peer review process 
  • Informing authors of solicited manuscripts that the submission will be evaluated according to the journal’s standard procedures or outlining the decision-making process if it differs from those procedures
  • Clearly communicating all other editorial policies and standards

Editor Responsibilities toward Reviewers

  • Assigning papers for review appropriate to each reviewer’s area of interest and expertise
  • Establishing a process for reviewers to ensure that they treat the manuscript as a confidential document and complete the review promptly
  • Informing reviewers that they are not allowed to make any use of the work described in the manuscript or to take advantage of the knowledge they gained by reviewing it before publication
  • Providing reviewers with written, explicit instructions on the journal’s expectations for the scope, content, quality, and timeliness of their reviews to promote thoughtful, fair, constructive, and informative critique of the submitted work
  • Requesting that reviewers identify any potential conflicts of interest and asking that they recuse themselves if they cannot provide an unbiased review
  • Allowing reviewers appropriate time to complete their reviews
  • Requesting reviews at a reasonable frequency that does not overtax any one reviewer
  • Finding ways to recognize the contributions of reviewers, for example, by publicly thanking them in the journal; providing letters that might be used in applications for academic promotion; offering professional education credits; or inviting them to serve on the editorial board of the journal

Editor Responsibilities toward Readers and the Scientific Community

  • Evaluating all manuscripts considered for publication to make certain that each provides the evidence readers need to evaluate the authors’ conclusions and that authors’ conclusions reflect the evidence provided in the manuscript
  • Providing literature references and author contact information so interested readers may pursue further discourse
  • Identifying individual and group authorship clearly and developing processes to ensure that authorship criteria are met to the best of the editor’s knowledge
  • Requiring all authors to review and accept responsibility for the content of the final draft of each paper or for those areas to which they have contributed
  • Maintaining the journal’s internal integrity (e.g., correcting errors; clearly identifying and differentiating types of content, such as reports of original data, opinion pieces [e.g., editorials and letters to the editor], corrections/errata, retractions, supplemental data, and promotional material or advertising; and identifying published material with proper references)
  • Ensuring that all involved in the publication process understand that it is inappropriate to manipulate citations by, for example, demanding that authors cite papers in the journal
  • Disclosing sources (e.g., authorship, journal ownership, and funding)
  • Creating mechanisms to determine if the journal is providing what readers need and want (e.g., reader surveys
  • Providing a mechanism for a further discussion on the scientific merits of a paper, such as by publishing letters to the editor, inviting commentaries, article blogs, or soliciting other forms of public discourse
  • Working with the publisher to attract the best manuscripts and research that will be of interest to readers