Manuscript Review Policy of Anhui Medical Journal

I. Initial Screening by the Managing Editor

1.      Assess if the manuscript conforms to the journal’s aims and scope.

2.      Verify whether the manuscript format complies with the journal’s requirements and whether the language is clear and professional.

3.      Check that the similarity index is below 20%.

4.      Screen for potential academic misconduct, such as duplicate submission or plagiarism.

5.      Identify any other factors that lead to direct rejection.

II. External Peer Review by Professional Specialists

2.1 Review Requirements

1.      Deliver an objective overall assessment of manuscript’s quality.

2.      Conduct detailed, impartial evaluations on manuscript’s content, focusing on its novelty, academic value, scientific rigor, reliability, and presentation.

3.      Provide a clear and specific recommendation (e.g., accept, revise, reject).

4.      Adhere to the journal’s quality standards and prioritize the timeliness of the review.

2.2 Guidelines for Reviewers

1.      Uphold academic norms and the principles of equality and impartiality, treat all manuscripts equally, judge manuscripts purely by academic quality, and conduct reviews with high accountability for academic communication.

2.      Evaluate manuscripts based on the journal’s academic positioning, covering political orientation, academic quality and writing proficiency. Propose a clear recommendation, such as Accept, Minor Revision, Major Revision, or Rejection, based on the manuscript’s novelty, theoretical significance, and practical value, and provide detailed, constructive comments.

3.      Do not share reviewed manuscripts with third parties or contact the author directly. Keep all manuscripts confidential prior to publication to protect the author’s intellectual property.

4.      Decline review requests promptly if there is a conflict of interest, if the manuscript falls outside the reviewer’s area of expertise, or if practical difficulties prevent a timely review.

III. Secondary Review by Editorial Director

1.      Synthesize and evaluate peer review comments. Arrange for supplementary or replacement reviews for manuscripts with conflicting opinions.

2.      Uphold strict standards regarding political and social responsibility. Screen for plagiarism, duplicate submission, and other forms of academic misconduct. Verify ethics approval documents and informed consent forms.

3.      Double-check the records of the initial screening, external review, and revision cycles to ensure procedural integrity.

4.      Make a carefully considered decision on the manuscript (Acceptance, Revision, or Rejection), providing detailed reasoning. Submit controversial or sensitive manuscripts to the final review stage.

IV. Final Review by the Editor-in-Chief/Associate Editor-in-Chief

1.      Conducted by the the Editor-in-Chief/Associate Editor-in-Chief, who makes the final decision: Accept, Revise, or Reject.

2.      Prioritize content quality and academic value as the primary criteria for manuscript acceptance.

3.      Document the grounds for acceptance or rejection in the journal’s official records.