Peer review process

Manuscripts are evaluated on the basis that they present new insights to the investigated topic and are likely to contribute to the progress of research or a change in clinical practice. Received manuscripts are first examined by the Polish Annals of Medicine Editors. Hence, priority in publishing is always given to works that present novel, practical as well as theoretical input into medical (or closely-related) science.

The papers that failed to meet the basic requirements of linguistic correctness or are inconsistent with the editorial requirements or do not fit into the thematic profile of the journal are rejected without review. After initial verification of the papers the Editorial Committee and the Editor in Chief selects Reviewers, who prepare, within an agreed time, reviews by filling in forms provided by the Editorial Team. The Reviewers assess the paper given its substantive content, correctness of the used method, logic of reasoning, coherence of contents with the topic, linguistic correctness, and relevant selection of references, etc.


Pol Ann Med operates based on a double blind peer review process. The Editor-in-Chief is responsible for the final decision regarding acceptance or rejection of all manuscripts.

Pol Ann Med follows a double blind peer review procedure according to the “COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers”. The initial review is done by the Editor-in-Chief who in case of a positive evaluation invites a Section Editor – an expert in the discipline of the submitted paper. The editor asks peer reviewers to disclose any conflicts of interests when they respond to an invitation to review. Manuscripts are sent to reviewers via e-mail, according to their scientific expertise. The editor ensures the confidential handling of manuscripts, with no details being disclosed to anyone except the peer reviewers without the permission of the author. Reviews are expected within 3 weeks of the acceptance of an invitation to review. Reviewers are provided with a detailed reviewing scheme. They are requested to provide an objective and constructive explanation for their recommendation. The final decision is undertaken by the Editor-in-Chief.


In case of manuscripts based on advanced statistical analyses, an additional peer reviewer specializing in biostatistics is invited.