- Category: About Acta HealthMedica
"Acta HealthMedica" is published by Mehr Publishing, a company with years of experience in book publishing, publication service providing, and technical supporting of scientific journals. Acta HealthMedica has applied to be indexed by Index Copernicus, Google Scholar, and Directory of Open Access Journals. In future, we will also apply for being indexed by Web of Science (Thomson Reuters), PubMed, and Scopus. We will also introduce our journal to online libraries of universities and academic institutes. As soon as we have a good news about our indexing, we will update this page.
Currently the journal uses or is introduced by or Indexed/Listed/appeared in the following services:
International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE)
Directory of Research Journal Indexing
Digital Object Identifier (DOI), Cross-ref
Road (Directory of Open Access Scholarly Resources)
ResearchBib (Academic Resource Index)
Journal Guide (by Research Square)
Journal Index (Powered by ScopeMed)
- Category: About Acta HealthMedica
Board of Editors and Internal Reviewers:
Dr. Mehrdad Jalalian
Co Editor In-Chief and Executive Editor
Founder of Mehr Publishing, Researcher on Publication Ethics, The World's Leading Researcher on Hijacked Journals and Misleading Metrics, Member of World Association of Medical Editors and Committee Of Publication Ethics (COPE)
Professor Dr. Syed Tajuddin Syed Hassan, Malaysia
Ph.D., Professor of Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, Universiti Putra Malaysia, Serdang, Selangor D. E., Malaysia
Dr. Alireza Sepehri Shamloo, Iran
Mashhad University of Medical Sciences (MUMS), International Trainer of International Federation of Medical Students Association (IFMSA), Member of American Medical Writers Association, President of IMSA/IRAN-MUMS
Abdeljalil Khelassi, Algeria
Associate Professor at Computer Science Department, and Head of Knowledge and Information Engineering Research Team KIERT at Informatic Research Laboratory IRL, Abou Bekr Belkaid University of Tlemcen, Algeria
Prof. Dr. med. Wolfgang Seger, Germany
Specialist in Internal Medicine, Gastroenterology, Social Medicine and Rehabilitation Medicine
Medical Director and Deputy CEO, Advisory Board of all Statutory Health and Long Term Care Insurances in Lower Saxony, Germany
Professor for Rehabilitation Medicine, University of Bremen, Germany
Chairman of the Medical Health Advisory Board of the Statutory German Federal Association for Rehabilitation
Professor Dr. Mushira Enani, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia
MBBS, FRCPE, FACP, Medical Director-Main Hospital, Consultant-Infectious Diseases, Medical Specialties Department, Assistant Dean, Female Affairs, Assistant Professor of Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, King Fahad Medical City, Saudi Arabia
Associate Professor Dr. Sharat Agarwal, India
M.S. Orth (AIIMS, New Delhi), S.O. University of Texas (Pediatric Orthopedics),USA
Associate Professor (Orthopaedics & Trauma), NEIGRIHMS, Shillong (India)
Prof. Dr. Mona Zaki, Egypt
Ph.D. and Professor of Clinical Pathology, National Research Center, Egypt.
ِDr. Hamidreza Mahboobi, Iran
Co Executive Editor,
M.D., Hormozgan University of Medical Sciences, Bandar Abbas, Iran
Associate Professor Dr. Rajeev Aravindakshan, Kingdom of Oman
Dept. of Epidemiology & Public health, Oman medical college, Sohar
Dr. Pouria Yazdian-Anari, Iran
Student Research Committee, Shahid Sadoughi University of Medical Sciences, Yazd, Iran
- Category: About Acta HealthMedica
Acta HealthMedica subscribes to the principles of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). The COPE’s code of conduct guidelines are available at: http://www.publicationethics.org
Part A. Editor’s Responsibilities:
A.1. Publication decisions
Editor-in-Chief of the journal is responsible for deciding which of the manuscripts should be published. Editors and reviewers treat all manuscripts as confidential documents do not show to or discussed with others except if authorized by the editor.
A.2. Fair play
The editor evaluate manuscripts for their intellectual content without regard to the nature of the authors or the host institution including race, gender, sexual orientation, religious belief, ethnic origin, citizenship, or political philosophy of the authors.
The editors and editorial staff must not disclose any information about manuscripts to anyone other than the corresponding author, reviewers, potential reviewers, and other editorial advisers as appropriate. In the case of a misconduct investigation, the editor-in-chief may disclose material to third parties (e.g., an institutional investigation committee or other editors).
A.4. Disclosure and conflicts of interest
Unpublished materials disclosed in a submitted manuscript must not be used in an editor's own research.
When genuine errors in published work are pointed out by readers, authors, or editors, a correction will be published as soon as possible. If the error renders the work or substantial parts of it invalid, the paper should be retracted with an explanation as to the reason for retraction.
A.6. Ensuring the integrity of the published record
If serious concerns are raised by readers, reviewers, or others, about the conduct, validity, or reporting of academic work, the editor-in-chief will initially contact the authors and allow them to respond to the concerns. If that response is unsatisfactory, the journal will take this to the institutional level. In cases when concerns are very serious and the published work is likely to influence clinical practice or public health, the journal may consider informing readers about these concerns, while the investigation is ongoing. Once an investigation is concluded the journal will publish comment that explains the findings of the investigation. Editor-in-chief may decide to retract a paper if a serious misconduct has happened even if an investigation by an institution or national body does not recommend it.
Part B. Reviewers’ responsibilities:
B.1. Contribution to Editorial Decisions
Peer review assists the editor in making editorial decisions and through the editorial communications with the author may also assist the author in improving the paper. Reviewers are expected to provide constructive comments on the manuscript that help the author(s) to revise the manuscript in higher standards and quality.
Reviewers that feel unqualified to review the research reported in a manuscript or knows that its prompt review will be impossible should notify the editor and excuse himself from the review process.
The reviewers should treat as confidential document any manuscripts received for review. They manuscript should not be shown to or discussed with others except as authorized by the editor.
B.4. Standards of Objectivity
Reviews should be conducted objectively. Personal criticism of the author is inappropriate. Referees should express their views clearly with supporting arguments.
B.5. Acknowledgement of Sources
Reviewers should identify relevant published work that has not been cited by the authors. Any statement that an observation, derivation, or argument had been previously reported should be accompanied by the relevant citation. A reviewer should also call to the editor's attention any substantial similarity or overlap between the manuscript under consideration and any other published paper of which they have personal knowledge.
B.6. Disclosure and Conflict of Interest
Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not used for personal advantage. Reviewers should not consider manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies, or institutions connected to the papers.
B.7. Reviewer misconduct
Acta HealthMedica will take reviewer misconduct seriously and pursue any allegation of breach of confidentiality, non-declaration of conflicts of interest (financial or non-financial), inappropriate use of confidential material, or delay of peer review for competitive advantage.
Pat C. Authors responsibilities:
Authors of reports of original research should present an accurate account of the work performed as well as an objective discussion of its significance. Underlying data should be represented accurately in the paper. A paper should contain sufficient detail and references to permit others to replicate the work. Fraudulent or knowingly inaccurate statements constitute unethical behavior and are unacceptable.
C.2. Data Access and Retention
Authors are asked to provide the raw data in connection with a paper for editorial review, and should be prepared to provide public access to such data and should in any event be prepared to retain such data for a reasonable time after publication.
C.3. Originality and Plagiarism
Acta HealthMedica checks the originality of the manuscripts by iThenticate and presents the “Similarity Report” to the authors. Authors should ensure that submitted work is original and has not been published elsewhere in any language, and if the authors have used the work and/or words of others that this has been appropriately cited or quoted. Applicable copyright laws and conventions should be followed. Copyright material (e.g. tables, figures or extensive quotations) should be reproduced only with appropriate permission and acknowledgement.
C.4. Multiple, Redundant or Concurrent Publication
Submitting the same manuscript to more than one journal concurrently constitutes unethical publishing behavior and is unacceptable.
C.5. Acknowledgement of Sources
Proper acknowledgment of the work of others must always be given. Authors should cite publications that have been influential in determining the nature of the reported work.
C.6. Authorship of the Paper
Authorship should be limited to those who have made a significant contribution to the conception, design, execution, or interpretation of the reported study. All those who have made significant contributions should be listed as co-authors. Where there are others who have participated in certain substantive aspects of the research project, they should be acknowledged or listed as contributors.
The corresponding author should ensure that all appropriate co-authors and no inappropriate co-authors are included on the paper, and that all co-authors have seen and approved the final version of the paper and have agreed to its submission for publication.
C.7. Individual and organizational acknowledgments:
All of the individuals or organizations that made a contribution to the work but they do not meet the criteria for authorship, should be acknowledged in the acknowledgments section of the manuscript. The corresponding author should not acknowledge any individual or organization without a written permission.
If the work involves chemicals, procedures or equipment that have any unusual hazards inherent in their use, the author must clearly identify these in the manuscript.
C.9. Reporting of research involving humans or animals
Appropriate approval, licensing or registration should be obtained before the research begins and details should be provided in the report (e.g. Institutional Review Board, Research Ethics Committee approval, national licensing authorities for the use of animals). If requested by editors, authors should supply evidence that reported research received the appropriate approval and was carried out ethically (e.g. copies of approvals, licenses, participant consent forms). Researchers should not generally publish or share identifiable individual data collected in the course of research without specific consent from the individual (or their representative).
C.10. Disclosure and Conflicts of Interest
All authors should disclose in their manuscript any financial or other substantive conflict of interest that might be construed to influence the results or interpretation of their manuscript. All sources of financial support for the project should be disclosed.
C.11. Fundamental errors in published works
When an author discovers a significant error or inaccuracy in his/her own published work, it is the author’s obligation to promptly notify the journal editor or publisher and cooperate with the editor to retract or correct the paper.
- Category: About Acta HealthMedica
We recommend our authors to read the following carefully before submitting the manuscripts:
1. Manuscripts are accepted on condition that they have not been previously published or submitted for publication, and are not going to be sent to other journals. This restriction does not apply to works published in a form of abstracts or summaries. The "Uniform Requirements for Manuscripts (URM) Submitted to Biomedical Journals" is incorporated into our review and publication process.
2. After Admin processing, the corresponding author will receive a Manuscript ID Number. All of the manuscripts are subject to be under Review process. The authors can expect to receive the first round of journal's comments and the initial result of their submissions within 4-6 weeks. If the authors choose the fast track option (fast review + publication), they will receive the initial result within "Two" weeks
3. Final decision on an article will be made by Editorial Boards after consideration of reviewers' evaluation. Possible decisions on a manuscript are: accept as is, minor revision, major revision, or reject.
4. Constructive reviewers' comments: All of the accepted manuscripts receive constructive reviewers' comments from our editorial office. Being constructive is one of the main features of peer-review process in Acta HealthMedica. Our authors can consider the constructive reviewers comments as an educational class to improve the quality of the manuscript and they acquire new skills and knowledge that can use it to perform their future research in higher standards and quality of the methods and validity of the findings.
6. This journal follows the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE)' flowcharts and guidelines for ethical publication of the medical research.
Editorial workflow and review system in Acta HealthMedica
Step 1. Manuscript submission
This means that the author of the paper submits the article to the journal. If the authors are not familiar with the process of submitting manuscripts for publication or communicating with a journal’s editors, they may ask an expert to submit the manuscript in their behalf. This expert’s name should not be added to the list of authors unless he/she also meets the criteria for authorship. Please refer to the criteria of authorship provided by the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) on this link: http://www.icmje.org
Authors are required to submit three files, i.e., a cover letter, the manuscript, and a completed conflict of interest (COI) form. Please visit the section Author Guidelines and Manuscript Submission , on our website for further information and to download the COI form and a sample cover letter.
An automated manuscript submission and review system is available on the website. However, most of authors who are not familiar with online manuscript submissions and they may submit their manuscripts by email, and we will add the manuscripts to the automated system.
All submissions must be accompanied by a completed Conflict of Interest (COI) form. The COI form is available at: http://www.ActaHealthMedica.com/COI.pdf
Step 2. Acknowledgments of submission
Within 1-3 days after submission, the author(s) will receive an email from the editorial office referring to the manuscript number and acknowledging receipt of the manuscript.
If the acknowledgement email from the editorial office has not been received within one week, authors should contact us with WhatsApp applications at +13476889491, or simply send a SMS to +13476889491 mentioning their email address, their names, and the title of manuscript.
Please do not use these numbers to call the editorial office because they are set to receive only SMS, Whatsapp, and Telegram messages.
Step 3: Review sessions
In this step, the editor will send the manuscript to the reviewers.
In our experience, most of the delays in peer review arise from inadequate communication between the associate editors of academic journals and the reviewers. Sometimes the invited reviewers forget to check their email or may not have time to open emails identified as “Invitation for manuscript review.” Sometimes, they do not inform the journal’s editors concerning whether or not they plan to review the manuscript. Sometimes, they agree to review a manuscript and forget to do so or do not provide their review comments in a reasonable amount of time. Therefore, Acta HealthMedica planned a new standard operating procedure (SOP) for its peer-review system.
In the new system, if a reviewer does not respond within 2-3 days to the invitation to provide a review, someone from editorial office will call them by phone to ask if they received the invitation and whether they plan to provide a review or not.
We ask all reviewers to perform their reviews as soon as possible, preferably within two weeks. However, we understand that, sometimes, reviewers will require additional time. In any case, members of our editorial office will contact the reviewers weekly to ensure that the reviews are received in the shortest possible time.
The authors can expect to receive the first round of journal's comments and the initial result of their submissions within 4-6 weeks. If the authors choose the fast track option (fast review + publication), they will receive the initial result within "Two" weeks and they are required to pay 100$ upon the acceptance of the manuscript.
At Acta HealthMedica, we do more than inform authors that their manuscripts have been accepted or rejected or simply ask the authors some questions about the manuscripts. While we do all of the routine reviews that other peer-reviewed journals do, we also have a higher level review system that provides authors some educational hints on the reviewers’ comments. Authors can use the reviewers’ comments and suggestions as well as the educational hints that we will provide to improve the quality of their manuscripts.
In this way, authors who wish to publish their manuscripts in Acta HealthMedica will have access to useful guidance on research methodology, applied statistics, scientific writing, and research ethics, allowing them to organize their manuscripts in keeping with the highest standards. The review sessions will be more constructive and add value to each author’s manuscript, the review sessions also might generate some additional ideas that our authors may wish to consider in their future research.
Step 4: Initial result of submission
After the first round of review, the manuscript may be rejected or accepted with minor or major revisions. It is possible that we also could accept a manuscript without revision, but this has never happened in the last seven years. Thus, manuscripts that are initially accepted must be revised by the author(s) based on the reviewers’ comments and suggestions.
Step 5. Payment of publication fee
We should clarify that our journal is free for both authors and readers; this clearly means that there is no publication fee, no authors fee, and no subscription fee. If the authors choose the fast track option (fast review + publication), they are required to pay 100$.
As we stated in Author Guidelines, we do not ask our authors to send their manuscripts to English editing companies for native English editing, because we already have a group of top-quality American English editors working for our journal. The journal will not charge the authors for this service, and we perform the highest quality of copy editing on accepted manuscripts to ensure the quality of the work we publish. When we say that advanced English editing is free, we mean that the editing itself is free, but there will be minimal tax and handling fees
Step 6. Screening the manuscript against plagiarism
In this step, iThenticate is used to check the manuscript for similarity index and probable plagiarism. The author will receive the report of iThenticate and the similarity index, and, if required, the author must paraphrase some sentences and paragraphs in the manuscript to make it plagiarism free. The journal may conduct plagiarism screening during any step in the review process.
Step 7. English editing
In this step, the revised manuscript will be sent for native English editing. Acta HealthMedica will perform advanced English editing on all accepted articles at no cost to the authors. Since our English editors provide numerous comments to the authors, we consider the editing step as the final reviewers' comments before preparing the pre-publication version of the manuscripts. However, our authors will find our English editors' comments, suggestions, and corrections to be very valuable guidance for appropriate scientific writing for academic journals. Thus, our authors can use the skills they learn during this step to their own advantage in writing future manuscripts.
Step 8. Galley proof
After revising the manuscript based on the reviewers’ comments and the English editor’s input, the final pre-publication version of the manuscript will be prepared and sent to the author(s) for final checking and approval.
Step 9. Publication of paper
After receiving the final approval from the author(s), a digital object identifier (DOI) will be assigned to the article, and it will be sent for final layout design and publication.
The following picture shows the Review Flowchart of the manuscripts in our journal.
- Category: About Acta HealthMedica
OPEN ACCESS POLICY AND REDISTRIBUTION
Acta HealthMedica (ISSN 2414-6528; Key title: Acta HealthMedica; Abbreviated key title : Acta HealthMedica; URL : http://www.actahealthmedica.com) is an open access journal, which means that all articles are available on the internet to all users immediately upon publication. Our articles our published under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs License, which permits use and distribution in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited, the use is non-commercial and no modifications or adaptations are made.