FAQ
Can the peer review process be expedited?
The editors cannot speed up the peer review process. It would be at the expense of its quality, which is unacceptable for us. In most cases, papers are improved in response to peer review, even those that are rejected and ultimately published in another journal. Therefore, shortening and hasting this stage would be detrimental also for the quality of the manuscripts. Moreover, if the peer review process seems unnecessarily prolonged, the causes are usually beyond editors' control. There is no guarantee that the suggested editors will agree to assess the manuscript, nor that reviewers will be found promptly following initial verification of the paper.
Why does Polim Med not permit any changes in the number or order of authors after the manuscript has been accepted for publication?
The restrictions concerning changes in the composition of the author’s team are intended to limit the possibility of unethical manipulation in this area. The practice of adding authors who had nothing to do with the preparation of a given article (or had, but to an extent that does not qualify them for co-authorship) is well known. Of course, it could also be that someone was forgotten about (especially in large teams spread over several centers) or that the team member responsible for submitting the article to the journal registered the authors in a different order (e.g., alphabetical), assuming that modifications would be possible at the galley proof stage. However, not every error can be corrected at every stage of the manuscript assessment and editing. It may seem unfair that someone innocent suffers the consequences of someone else’s mistakes, but (unfortunately) it is also wrong to leave opportunities to people who lack both principles and inhibitions.
It is also worth mentioning that the corresponding author cannot be changed following the acceptance of the paper – there cannot be one corresponding author for contacts with editors and another one for contacts with readers following publication, since it is not a honorary but a practical role.
Why should tables and figures be submitted as separate files and not pasted into the main body of the text?
We cannot guarantee that they will be placed exactly in the places in the paper you planned them – they will appear on the same page they are first referred to or on a neghboring page, but not necessarily below a specific sentence.
Why must the similarity index be lower than 30%?
Our experience shows that high similarity index cannot be a result of simply using terms, acronyms and definitions accepted in this field of medicine, but stems from overuse of direct citations from other works. Please note that re-using fragments of one or more publications of one or more co-authors of the paper is also considered plagiarism (and is called self-plagiarism).
Why does Polim Med not consider a separate list of corrections a proper response to the galley proof?
Such way of conveying what corrections should be made is markedly more prone to error than comments on the galley proof PDF – the editor has to transfer every single correction from one file to another.
Why aren't the authors allowed to change the galley proof files themselves, but can only make comments on the galley proof file?
Allowing authors to directly edit PDF galley proofs can lead to several issues:
-
Distortion and usability: Any changes made directly to the PDF can distort the layout and make the file unusable for editors. This includes not only text edits but also changes to tables, figures, and even the addition of watermarks.
-
Ethical considerations: Editors need to track each correction made by the authors. Allowing direct edits can obscure this process, making it difficult to ensure that all changes are properly reviewed and approved. To maintain the integrity of the publication process, it's essential to have a clear record of all changes and ensure that the final version adheres to the publisher's standards. This is why authors are typically restricted to making comments rather than direct edits.
Why are the authors allowed to correct published papers only in the form of published correction (erratum) and not by simply altering the version on the website?
Authors are required to correct published papers through a formal process called an erratum rather than directly altering the version on the website for several reasons:
Transparency: Published corrections ensure that the record of the scholarly work is transparent and traceable. It allows readers to clearly see what changes were made and why, maintaining the integrity of the scientific record.
Accountability: The erratum process holds authors and publishers accountable for any mistakes. It provides an official record of corrections, which is important for maintaining trust in the published work.
Consistency: Altering the version on the website without a formal correction process could lead to inconsistencies in the scholarly record. Different readers might access different versions of the paper, leading to confusion.
Academic integrity: The formal erratum process upholds the standards of academic integrity by ensuring that all corrections are properly reviewed and approved by the editors before being published.
Indexing and citation: Published corrections are indexed and linked to the original paper, ensuring that citations to the paper remain accurate and that readers are aware of any changes or updates. An article is not only posted on the journal's website, but also sent for indexing to a number of databases, and it is not possible to correct material deposited in all of them. Thus, the editors could correct the version on their site, but in the databases, the original version would already be circulating. Second, too frequent corrections without a valid reason could result in the journal losing credibility and being removed from one or more databases. Finally, and most importantly, some databases explicitly make it a condition that following publication as ahead of print, an article can no longer be modified later – publication means that the paper has taken its final form and cannot be changed without explicitly stating that a correction has been made.
Can the authors obtain the DOI of the paper before its publication as ahead of print?
No. An active DOI is the DOI of the published article. A DOI before publication is only a proposed one and does not allow for finding the article in the Internet (and is therefore useless).
Why are there restrictions regarding number and size of panels in one figure?
All elements of each figure must be legible when viewed on an A4 page in a PDF file in full-screen mode, without zooming. Overtly complex figures with multiple charts/graphs combined into one panel cannot fulfill this requirement.
Why are there restrictions regarding references mentioned in tables?
References in tables should fit into the consecutive numeration of the references in place where a given table is first mentioned, and should be in the order they appear on the reference list. Randomness in the sequence of reference citing may confuse the readers and make the paper appear unprofessionally written and edited.
Why can't the graphical abstract be a compilation of figures from the manuscript?
A graphical abstract is meant to provide a clear and concise visual summary of the main findings of a research paper. While it might seem convenient to compile figures from the manuscript, there are a few reasons why this practice is generally avoided:
Clarity and simplicity: A graphical abstract should be easy to understand at a glance. Compiling multiple figures can lead to a cluttered and confusing visual that detracts from the main message.
Focus: The purpose of a graphical abstract is to highlight the most important aspects of the research. Including multiple figures can dilute the focus and make it harder for readers to grasp the key points. A graphical abstract should be comprehensible without the context of the text (self-explanatory), while the meaning of figures is usually unclear outside the context of the whole paper.
Design and layout: Creating a cohesive and visually appealing graphical abstract often requires a different approach to design and layout than what is used for individual figures. A well-designed graphical abstract should be visually engaging and effectively communicate the essence of the research.
Can I send a manuscript by e-mail and ask whether the journal is interested in it?
No. We perform no pre-assessment of papers sent by e-mail regarding their scope or publication possibility. All manuscripts should be submitted to editorial office via electronic Editorial System. We do not assess manuscripts sent by post or e-mail.
Is there a possibility of rapid publication or rapid peer review for an extra fee?
No. We offer neither fast-track nor priority publication in any form.
Can there be 2 co-first or 2 co-corresponding authors of 1 paper?
No. There can be only 1 first author and 1 corresponding author for each manuscript (both functions can also be held by a single person). Adv Clin Exp Med does not permit co-first authorship and co-corresponding authors for any reasons. However, we offer to mark the names of 2 chosen authors on the first page of the paper with asterisks [*] and to place a disclaimer [X and Y contributed equally to this work] on the same page.
Do all authors of a paper need to have ORCIDs?
No. Authors submitting their manuscripts to Wroclaw University Press journals are advised to use a unique ORCID number (Open Researcher and Contributor ID). However, it is not mandatory.
Why are the checklists mandatory for original papers, meta-analyses and reviews?
These tools are sometimes perceived by authors as an additional impediment to submitting an article to a journal, but choosing the right document of this type and adjusting the manuscript to the requirements included in it are also important from the point of view of the authors. Requirements listed in various checklists reflect the standards widely accepted in scientific medical journals, to which different types of articles should conform. If a paper is compliant with the requirements appropriate to it, the chances of being published (and then cited) increase.
Checklists are useful for preparing scientific papers – for authors, they serve as a tool to ensure the correct structure and content of the manuscript, which in turn increases the chances that a paper will be published in a journal with a high rejection rate. They serve this purpose only if authors not only select and complete an appropriate checklist, but also modify the manuscript to meet the requirements of a particular checklist. Therefore, it is advisable to select a checklist not when submitting the paper, but already when deciding on the type of the paper.
Why is data sharing mandatory for original papers, meta-analyses and reviews?
The first reason is to let the reviewers check more deeply the findings presented. The second – to allow replication of given procedures or experiments by other researchers. The third – to provide access to the data to researchers who can conduct other investigations using them.
Why is adding supplementary data not possible in original papers and research letters?
In manuscripts of these types, supplementary data are not visible to peer reviewers (and access to them may be important when assessing the article) in the Editorial System. Therefore, all supplementary part should be made available as a part of the shared data, stored in a repository, with an URL placed at the end of the main body of the text.
Why is it mandatory to provide DOI/PMID/ISBN for each reference (when such identifier is available)?
If the positions on the reference list do not include DOI, PMID or (for books) ISBN identifiers, their entry into a reference manager by editors will be much more time-consuming. Following publication, it will be much easier for the reader to find a given item in the Internet since the DOI or other number identifies it directly and unambiguously.