Peer Review Process

The Journal is committed to prompt evaluation and publication of submitted articles. All manuscripts together with supplementary files (if applicable) should be submitted online via the journal web page. The submission and review process is fully electronic and submissions by e-mail or postal mail will not be accepted. Please follow the manuscript preparation directions presented. Manuscripts submitted for publication in the Journal are evaluated as to whether they present new insights into the announced topic and are likely to contribute to progress in research or to changes in medical practice. Received manuscripts are initially examined by the Journal editors. Manuscripts with insufficient priority for publication are rejected immediately to allow the authors to recognize deficiencies and submit the paper to another journal or resubmit a revised version. Incomplete submissions or manuscripts not prepared in the required style are sent back to the authors without scientific review.

If manuscript is accepted for review, the authors will be notified in the electronic way only with the reference to the article ID number in the electronic system. Articles are evaluated by at least two outside referees who are contacted before being sent a paper and asked to return comments within time period indicated by Editors. All submitted manuscripts are treated as confidential documents, and reviewers are instructed to treat manuscripts as such. The peer review process is also confidential and identities of reviewers are not released. Referees are asked to provide a written review together with recommendation of acceptance, requirement for revision or rejection of the article.

Authors are notified of decisions by e-mail only. Selected papers are edited to improve accuracy and clarity and for length. Criteria for acceptance of manuscripts or review forms are available at the Journal web page. Rheumatology Forum (RF) operates with a  “double blind” peer review policy, meaning that reviewers of  papers won’t get to know the identity of the author(s), and the author(s) won’t get to know the identity of the reviewer. The idea is that everyone should get a similar and unbiased review. The list of reviewers cooperating with the Journal is announced once a year. In potential cases when author(s) of manuscripts and reviewers are no more anonymous, reviewers are asked to confirm in writing no conflict of interests, i.e. no direct personal relationships (first- and second-degree kinship, legal ties, relationship by marriage), superior/subordinate professional relations or direct scientific cooperation within the two years preceding the review. Papers submitted to RF’ but not accepted for publication may, in some cases, be eligible for publication in other journals of the Publisher. 

Manuscripts authored by Editors or members of Editorial Board are treated no differently to any other manuscript submitted to RF. All possible measures are undertaken to avoid any potential conflict of interest in handling of such manuscripts at all the stages including allocation of handling Editor, selection of reviewers, decision making and, if required, processing for publication.

Editors or Editorial Board members may submit their own manuscripts for possible publication in RF occasionally, but they are completely excluded from peer–review process and publication decisions when they are authors or co–authors of a manuscript. Manuscripts authored by a member of a journal’s editorial team (editors, Editorial Board members) are independently peer–reviewed and the peer review process is managed by the alternative members of the Editorial Board.

Reviewers’ criteria for manuscripts qualification

• Title reflects the subject undertaken
• Assumptions are proper
• Work of practical nature
• Work of educational nature
• Aims are clearly defined
• Appropriate methodology*
• Ethical criteria fulfilled*
• Research-based work*
• Results are adequately presented*
• Statistical analysis is reliable*
• Discussion refers to results*
• Conclusions based on study findings*
• Conclusions refer to aims*
• Suitably chosen, proper number and up to date references
• Proper length
• All figures and tables are required
• Standard of written English acceptable

* criteria exclusively for research papers

This journal provides immediate open access to its content on the principle that making research freely available to the public supports a greater global exchange of knowledge. Articles published in opean access are available under Creative Common Attribution-Non Commercial-No Derivatives 4.0 International (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0) allowing to download articles and share them with others as long as they credit the authors and the publisher, but without permission to change them in any way or use them commercially.

Rheumatology Forum (RF) will accept advertising for services and products that are of value to readers in their professions. Distinction between advertising and editorial content should be easy. RF does not allow advertising to influence editorial decisions. Online advertising or sponsorship should not impede users’ access to editorial content. Journal accepts advertising from competitors. Advertisements or sponsorship related to tobacco products will not be accepted.

Advertisements and sponsorship must be legal, trusthworthy and comply with the relevant industry codes, laws and regulations.

This policy applies to complaints on policies, procedures and actions of PMP’s editorial staff and as a rule is regarded as an opportunity for improvement. Complaints will be dealt with by members of the editorial staff, escalating (if required) to editor-in-chief, whose decision is regarded as final. Complaints should be directly emailed to a person indicated as a support contact at the Journal’s contact panel.  All complaints will be acknowledged within three working days and, if possible, a full response will be made within three weeks. If this is not possible an interim response will be given within this timeframe. Further responses will be provided until the issue is resolved.

If authors are convinced that the article they submitted was rejected wrongly, they should send rebuttal letter via RF’s support contact rather than submitting a revised article at this stage. If the editors agree to such appeal, authors may be asked to submit a revised version of the article in question which will enter again into RF’s review process. The rebuttal letter should be detailed and include responses to comments from external reviewers and from Journal’s editors. Only one appeal per article will be considered. An invitation for resubmission after appealing is by itself not a guarantee of acceptance.

This publication is intended for doctors and students of medicine. Every effort has been made to provide actual information, especially on medicine dosage, however, it is advisable that doctors make final decisions on their usage. This publication is not meant to replace a proper medical diagnosis or therapy. Responsibility taken by authors is suitable for this kind of publication and is not tantamount to responsibility for an individual medical advice.

The publisher has made every effort concerning reliability of the publication and the included information on the assortment, medicines and their prices. Yet the only legal information valid in the Republic of Poland are legal acts and in terms of trade – price offers of drugstores. As far as the information on medicines is concerned, the only lawful information is an updated characteristic of a medicinal substance and its producer’s leaflet.

The authors, consultants and publishers of this publication do not take any responsibility for possible mistakes or harms resulted from the information usage. Any cases of legal claims connected with medicines and chemical substances being under clinical examination are not going to be taken into consideration.

To exclude, even unintentional, plagiarism Rheumatology Forum has introduced Ithenticate software, widely known in the academic community. All papers accepted for publication are now automatically screened within the manuscript system. Additionally, Editors may decide to run a similarity report at any other point during the review process or post-publication. Our Editorial team is aware of recognized limitation of this tool and realize that a high similarity score does not necessarily indicate plagiarized text. Thus, every doubtful report will be delt with individually to determine whether there are any grounds for concern.