Peer Review

Acta Medica Philippina believes in the value of peer review. Such will serve to provide further insight into the topic area being reported in the submitted manuscripts and potentially enhance the scientific and academic value of articles that are eventually published. Peer review can help ensure the high quality and integrity of articles published in the Journal.

We also believe that the timely conduct of peer review is important. This is intended to justify the efforts made by the author(s) to finish their manuscripts as well as make the information available to readers as soon as possible. Therefore, the proper engagement of appropriate expert reviewers and their timely response is a priority that the Journal focuses on.

Sections

 

Double-blind Policy

The Journal follows a double-blind policy in the conduct of its peer review. This means that neither the authors nor the reviewers are informed of each other’s identity. Thus, author names and institutional connections are not included in the documents sent to the reviewers. Likewise, the names of reviewers are not provided but only the content of comments and/or questions are given to authors for their response.

The double-blind peer review policy is meant to promote the integrity of the review process and should allow focusing only on the content of the submitted manuscripts. Reviewers should not be affected by their previous relationships and/or knowledge of the authors and institutions connected with the manuscript under review. Authors should also not be affected and/or think of other reasons for the comments other than a purely scientific intent to raise clarifications.

Occasionally, reviewers may be able to identify the institutional source or even some of the details of authors in a manuscript due to previous knowledge about the study or subject area. Reviewers are strongly discouraged from approaching these authors and/or institutions to verify if they are the source of the submitted manuscript. All their comments and/or suggestions related to the manuscript should be formally captured by the peer reviewer in the Manuscript Review Form (see the section on Manuscript Review Form below).

Selection of Peer Reviewers

Peer reviewers are selected based on their declared expertise area/s. These are aligned with the subject area of the submitted manuscript. Members of the Journal Board of Editors are invited to participate as peer reviewers and/or identify potential reviewers who can be invited. Authors of submitted manuscripts are also asked if they are interested to participate in future review activities for submitted manuscripts. Authors may also be asked to identify possible reviewers for their manuscripts. However, authors are not informed if these reviewers are indeed contacted and/or accepted to review their manuscripts in line with the double-blind policy of peer review.

At a minimum, two (2) reviews would be done for each manuscript. A third reviewer may be engaged by the Editorial Staff in case there is discordance between the two reviews and/or another review is required to help arrive at an editorial decision regarding further comments from the authors.

Reviewers who accept the invitation need to sign a Peer Reviewer Conforme stating their
responsibilities and other details such as timelines. The Journal provides upon request

Certification of Peer Review for legitimate use (e.g., for promotion purposes in academic institutions). However, the titles of manuscripts are not stated in line with the Double-blind policy of Peer Review.

Link to Peer Reviewer Conforme here

Reviewers are given a period of two (2) weeks to complete their responses. In case a reviewer declines or no response is received within one (1) week from an invitation, an alternative reviewer is invited until a minimum of two (2) reviews are received for each manuscript. Reviewers can request an extension to conduct their reviews. These are normally allowed up to another week of extension.

Reviewers can only request an extension once. In case a review is not received within the default period of two (2) weeks or the requested extension of another week (total of 3 weeks review period) an alternative reviewer is identified and invited.

Manuscript Review Form

A Manuscript Review Form is provided to Peer Reviewers who accept an invitation. These are
intended to assist in the review.

Manuscript review forms:
https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1lmJWeDVyvc2sxDKXwBdV1tgD95bW6OAu?usp=sharing

The Manuscript Review Form is based on the EQUATOR Network Reporting Guidelines Checklist. Authors who intend to submit to the Journal are strongly encouraged to use this Checklist when writing their studies (see Submission Requirements). Therefore, reviewers may also find it helpful to use the same checklist in reviewing these manuscripts.

Reviewers can use this to submit their comments and suggestions. Only the Checklist appropriate for the type of manuscript submitted is provided to the reviewer.

The Manuscript Review Form is reviewed by Editorial Staff for professional language, clarity, appropriateness, and anonymity. Comments are not altered by Editorial staff.

Once reviewer comments and suggestions are deemed acceptable, these are sent to the Corresponding author for their responses and other action(s).

Author Responses and Revisions

Comments from reviewers are immediately forwarded to the authors. These are anonymized in line with the double-blind policy of peer review. The author (s) do not necessarily have to follow all the recommendations made by reviewers. However, the Journal requires as a minimum a response from the author(s) with regard to these comments and suggestions. Their intended action, including revisions as appropriate, should be clearly stated. Authors may use the Author Response to Peer Review Comments to detail their responses. 

Link to Author Response Form:
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1D3G7kEL-me3Oa2vEARckzECYhBvl8DxW/edit?usp=sharing&ouid=118348432341627575380&rtpof=true&sd=true

Authors have a maximum of six (6) months to respond to all comments submitted by reviewers. A reminder will be sent through the Corresponding Author in case a manuscript exceeds the 6 months interval without a response. An extension of one (1) month is given to authors if requested. Authors are allowed only one (1) extension. If no responses and/or revisions are received after 1 month, the manuscript is considered rejected.

If no request to extend further is received within one (1) week, the submission is deemed INACTIVE and will be deleted from the Journal archives and considered as rejected.

Authors may submit the same manuscript but will be considered a new submission. They have to begin at the start of the submission process.

Data validity of submitted manuscripts is five (5) years from the time data was collected up to the time the manuscript was submitted (see Submission Requirements).

Authors should submit their REVISED manuscript incorporating all the accepted comments and/or suggestions of the reviewer(s).

The REVISED manuscript should track the changes made using the ORIGINAL submitted manuscript. This is needed by Editorial staff to ensure that accepted comments and/or suggestions are properly incorporated in the revised manuscript.

How to track changes in Word
https://support.microsoft.com/en-us/office/video-track-changes-and-show-markup-3faf8a07-26ed-4b76-b6a0-43cca013e6d3#:~:text=Use%20Track%20Changes,made%20stay%20in%20the%20document.

How to track changes in Google Docs
https://blog.hubspot.com/marketing/google-docs-track-changes#:~:text=Can%20You%20Track%20Changes%20in,Suggesting%20(Edits%20become%20suggestions).

The revised manuscript is then evaluated by the Editorial staff. A final decision to accept the revised manuscript is made by the Editorial staff. Revised manuscripts are not returned to the original peer reviewers for further comments. If needed, an Editorial Board member or a third reviewer may be consulted regarding the response(s) of the authors.

The Corresponding Author is informed of the final decision to accept or decline the manuscript for publication.

The accepted manuscript undergoes further copyediting. It is then laid out according to the Acta Medica Philippina journal style (see Article Publication).

The uploading of articles to the Journal website is dependent on how quickly authors respond and revisions made as necessary based on the reviewer comments as well as final approval of the articles in the journal style.

Appeals, Complaints, Disputes

A manuscript can be rejected for publication in Acta Medica Philippina. It can be rejected outright because it is not in a subject area that the Journal publishes (see About the Journal). Or the authors have failed to comply with submission requirements in a timely manner (see Submission Requirements). Failure to respond in an appropriate and timely manner to reviewer comments can also be a reason for rejection (see Author Responses and Revisions). Finally, failure to participate and/or approve the article galley in a timely manner can be a reason for rejection.

In such cases, an appeal, complaint, or dispute can be raised. These are reviewed according to the Editorial Policies shared on this website. Additionally, the COPE Guidelines can be used to evaluate such appeals, complaints, or disputes.
https://publicationethics.org/

Communication related to rejected manuscripts should be submitted formally to the Editor-in-Chief, either as a message in the manuscript document tracking using the submission portal or directly to the Editor-in-Chief: jqtanchuco1@up.edu.ph

Specific response(s) to the issue raised (e.g., the reason for manuscript rejection) should be stated as part of the appeal. Supporting documents can be provided as appropriate (e.g., timeliness of author responses).

The Journal will acknowledge receipt of this communication. An investigation of the matter will be conducted. As needed, particularly if it involves Journal Editorial policies, the Editorial Board will also be consulted.

The Journal endeavors to address this within a two (2) week period. In case extra time is needed (e.g., to gather more evidence), a notification of the need to extend the time will be sent.

Once a decision is reached, this will be shared with the complainant. These decisions are held final.

Article Withdrawal, Retractions and Corrections

Article withdrawal refers to a decision by authors to remove submitted manuscripts from further consideration in the journal. This can be done at any time during the publication workflow.

The withdrawal request must be in writing and signed by all authors. Given the time and resources invested in the peer-review process, article withdrawal must be accompanied by a strong justification for the same.

The Journal reserves the right to blacklist author(s) who requests article withdrawal with no valid reason.

Article correction refers to the issuance of a correction notice for published articles that contain errors or omissions that do not alter a paper’s scientific integrity. Authors may submit requests for corrections in writing to the journal Editorial Office. Requests for corrections shall be decided by the Editor-in-Chief considering relevant ICMJE recommendations (http://icmje.org/recommendations/browse/publishing-and-editorial-issues/corrections-and-version-control.html). Corrections will be published under erratum in a later issue of the journal.

Article retraction pertains to a mechanism for correcting the literature in relation to a published article that has serious flaws or erroneous content. Acta Medica Philippina shall consider and manage retractions consistent with the COPE retraction guidelines (https://doi.org/10.24318/cope.2019.1.4). Authors are given the opportunity to respond to claims of fraud or otherwise anomalous activity in connection with the manuscript sent by a reader.

Articles may be retracted upon approval of a submitted signed statement from all the article authors. A notice of retraction, including the reasons for the retraction, will be published. The original article will then be marked as retracted.