AJMHS is a peer-reviewed open-access international journal that publishes interesting clinical and experimental research conducted in all fields of medicine and health sciences, interesting case reports and clinical images, invited reviews, editorials, comments and letters to the Editor including reports on publication and research ethics. The language of the Journal is English. The Journal is based on independent and unbiased double-blinded peer-reviewing principles. Only unpublished papers that are not under review for publication elsewhere can be submitted.
The primary aim of the journal is to publish original articles with high scientific and ethical quality and serve as a good example of medical publications in the region. The AJMHS believes that the quality of publication will lead to the progress of medical sciences and healthcare.
The Editorial Board of the AJMHS and the Publisher adheres to the principles of the International Council of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE), the World Association of Medical Editors (WAME), the Council of Science Editors (CSE), the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), the US National Library of Medicine (NLM),the US Office of Research Integrity (ORI), the European Association of Science Editors (EASE), the International Society of Managing and Technical Editors (ISMTE). The editor-in-chief has full authority over the editorial and scientific content of the AJMHS and the timing of publication of the content. The editor-in-chief has full authority over the editorial and scientific content of the AJMHS and the timing of publication of the content.
All articles submitted for publication are strictly reviewed for their adherence to the following criteria:
Criteria for Publication
Originality
Importance to researchers or practitioners in the field
Interest for researchers or practitioners outside the field
Rigorous methodology with substantial evidence for its conclusions
Adherence to the highest ethical standards
Quality and suitability for the Journal
The Review Process
AJMHS uses an established scheme for the evaluation process aiming at a fair, quality-based and rapid article processing (Please refer to "Instructions to Authors" page for more information).
Manuscripts that comply with the main rules of the journal are sent to at least two external reviewers that are asked for their opinion about the suitability of the paper for publication. The reviewed manuscripts are then re-reviewed by the Executive Editorial Board and a decision of rejection or acceptance is taken.
Any information that may indicate an individual or institution should be excluded from the main document to ensure a blinded review process. If the reviewers have any potential competing interests, they must notify the editor before agreeing to review a submission. AJMHS is committed to the highest standards of research and publication ethics. Editors will act in accordance with the relevant international rules of publication ethics (i.e.,COPE guidelines, WAME resources, WMA policies and ORI) if any ethical misconduct is suspected. The Executive Editorial Board encourages reviewers to comment on possible research or publication misconduct such as unethical research design, duplication, plagiarism, etc. Plagiarism is a serious problem and the most common ethical issue afflicting medical writing. AJMHS does not allow any form of plagiarism. In accordance with our journal policy, submitted manuscripts are screened with plagiarism software to detect instances of overlapping and similar text. If the reviewers have any suspect, the editors can provide them information obtained by plagiarism screening tools. An approval of research protocols by an ethics committee in accordance with international agreements (“WMA Declaration of Helsinki - Ethical Principles for Medical Research Involving Human Subjects (last updated: October 2013, Fortaleza, Brazil)”, “Guide for the care and use of laboratory animals (8th edition, 2011)”and/or“International Guiding Principles for Biomedical Research Involving Animals (2012)” is required for all experimental and clinical and drug trial studies. For articles concerning experimental research on humans, a statement should be included that shows informed consent of patients and volunteers was obtained following a detailed explanation of the procedures that they may undergo. Informed consent must also be obtained for case reports. All recognizable photographs of a patient must be accompanied by written permission from the patient for reproduction. Procedures that were performed to eliminate any pain, harm and distress in subjects/animals should clearly be stated. The authors should clearly state their compliance with internationally accepted guidelines and the guidelines issued by the relevant authority of their country. The journal requests a copy of the Ethics Committee Approval received from the relevant authority. AJMHS wants reviewers to treat the manuscripts in confidence. The material of the manuscripts must not be used or shared in any way until they have been published. COPE flowchart in cases of suspected reviewer misconduct. Please refer to COPE ethical guidelines for peer reviewers for "Basic principles to which peer reviewers should adhere" and "Expectations from reviewers". If the reviewers need, they can go through the "Instructions to Authors".
Writing the Review
The purpose of the review is to provide the editors with an expert opinion regarding the quality of the manuscript under consideration and should also supply authors with explicit feedback on how to improve their papers so that they will be acceptable for publication inAJMHS. Although confidential comments to the editors are respected, any remarks that might help to strengthen the paper should be directed to the authors themselves. The best possible review would answer the following questions:
The reviewers can also use the questions below, when reviewing the manuscripts:
Please state any conflict(s) of interest that you have in relation to the review of this manuscript (state "none" if this is not applicable).
Do you suspect any research or publication misconduct? If yes, please indicate in detail.
Does the manuscript contain new and significant information to justify publication? What are the main claims of the paper and how important are they? Are these claims novel? If not, please specify reasons (or papers) that weaken the claims to the originality of this one. Are the claims properly placed in the context of the previous literature?
Is the title of the article appropriate?
Does the abstract clearly and accurately describe the content of the article?
Is the problem significant and concisely stated?
Are the methods described comprehensively? If a protocol is provided, for example for a randomized controlled trial, are there any important deviations from it? If so, have the authors explained adequately why the deviations occurred?
Is the results section clear and satisfactory? Do the results support the claims? If not, what other evidence is required?
Are the interpretations and conclusions justified by the results?
Would any other experiments or additional information improve the paper? Would the extra work exert a strong influence in the scientific quality of the paper?
Is adequate and current reference made to other work in the field?
Who would find this paper of interest? Why?
Is the language acceptable?
Please rate the priority for publishing this article (1 is the highest priority, 10 is the lowest priority).
Is the terminology used appropriately in the text?
Are the figures or the tables sufficient to present the list of facts or numbers treated in the paper?
Is it necessary to shorten the article?
Do you have major remarks? Please explain them in detail.
Do you have minor remarks? Please explain them in detail.
If the paper is considered unsuitable for publication in its present form, does the study itself have enough potential to encourage the authors to resubmit a revised version of their manuscript?
Comments to Editor: Use this space to transfer to the Editor the basis for your recommendation for acceptance or rejection. These comments will NOT be conveyed to the author.
Comments to Author: Use this space to convey specific feedback to the author on your recommendation. Please, specify in detail all the minor or major remarks referring precisely to the section of the paper, subheading, paragraph number and line number.
The editors make their decision based on the reviewers' comments. There are several types of decision possible:
Accept the manuscript as submitted.
Accept it with minor revision.
Invite the authors to submit a major revision of the manuscript before a final decision is reached.
Reject, typically because it does not fit the criteria outlined above of originality, importance to the field, cross-discipline interest, or sound methodology.
When differences of opinion occur between reviewers, the professional editor and the academic editor weigh all comments and arrive at a balanced decision based on all comments. To assist in this process, the reviewer should provide the editors with as much information as possible. A review that clearly outlines reasons both for and against publication is therefore of as much, or even more, value as one that makes a direct recommendation.
If reviewers appear to disagree fundamentally, the editors may choose to share all the reviews with each of the reviewers and by this means elicit additional comment that may help the editors to make a decision. The academic and professional editors then assess the recommendations and comments of the reviewers alongside comments by the authors and material that may not have been made available to those reviewers. When a paper has been revised in response to comments by reviewers or when authors feel their argument has been misconstrued in review, we ask reviewers to offer additional comments on the revised or contested manuscript. We request that reviewers make themselves available to provide such follow-up advice. We are nevertheless aware that reviewers do not wish to be involved in extended discussions over papers and we keep such consultations to a minimum while still allowing authors a fair hearing.
Confidentiality
The review process is strictly confidential and should be treated as such by reviewers. Because the author may have chosen to exclude some people from this process, no one not directly involved with the manuscript, including colleagues or other experts in the field, should be consulted by the reviewer unless such consultations have first been discussed with the professional editor.
Timely Reviewing
AJMHS believes that an efficient editorial process that results in timely publication provides a valuable service both to authors and to the community at large. We therefore request that reviewers respond promptly, usually within 14 days of receipt of a manuscript. If reviewers need more time, we request that they contact us promptly so that we can keep the authors informed and, if necessary, assign alternate reviewers.
Subscriptions/Permissions and Reprints / Advertisements
Free open access and full-text articles can be accessed and downloaded from the following webpage: http://ajmhs.umed.edu.al Applications for subscriptions, permissions, reprints and advertisements should be made to the following addresses.
Editorial Office
Albanian Journal of Medical and Health Sciences (AJMHS)
Editor in Chief: Prof. Genc Sulcebe
University of Medicine, Tirana (UMT), Str. Dibra, Nr. 371, AL1005, Tirana, Albania
Tel/Fax.: ++35542364432, E-mail: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
The Rector of the University of Medicine, Tirana
University of Medicine, Tirana (UMT), Str. Dibra, Nr. 371, AL1005, Tirana, Albania
Tel/Fax.: ++35542364432, E-mail: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
website: http://www.umed.edu.al
Material Disclaimer
All opinions and reports within the articles that are published at the Albanian Journal of Medical and Health Sciences are the personal opinions of the authors. The Editor and the publisher of the AJMHS do not accept any responsibility for these articles.
Advertising policies
The journal accepts display and classified advertising. Frequency discounts and special position are available. The journal reserves the right to reject any advertisement considered unsuitable according to the set policies of the journal. The appearance of advertising or product information in the various sections in the journal does not constitute an endorsement or approval by the journal and/or its publisher of the quality or value of the said product or of claims made for it by its manufacturer.
Subscriptions
AJMHS is published three times a year and is available on subscription. For further information contact Editorial Office:
Albanian Journal of Medical and Health Sciences, University of Medicine, Tirana,
Str. Dibra, Nr. 371, AL1005, Tirana, Albania
Tel/Fax.: ++35542364432,
Editorial e-mail: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
website: http://ajmhs.umed.edu.al
AJMHS is a peer-reviewed open-access international journal that publishes interesting clinical and experimental research conducted in all fields of medicine and health sciences, interesting case reports and clinical images, invited reviews, editorials, comments and letters to the Editor including reports on publication and research ethics. The language of the Journal is English. The Journal is based on independent and unbiased double-blinded peer-reviewing principles. Only unpublished papers that are not under review for publication elsewhere can be submitted.
The primary aim of the journal is to publish original articles with high scientific and ethical quality and serve as a good example of medical publications in the region. The AJMHS believes that the quality of publication will lead to the progress of medical sciences and healthcare.
The Editorial Board of the AJMHS and the Publisher adheres to the principles of the International Council of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE), the World Association of Medical Editors (WAME), the Council of Science Editors (CSE), the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), the US National Library of Medicine (NLM),the US Office of Research Integrity (ORI), the European Association of Science Editors (EASE), the International Society of Managing and Technical Editors (ISMTE). The editor-in-chief has full authority over the editorial and scientific content of the AJMHS and the timing of publication of the content. The editor-in-chief has full authority over the editorial and scientific content of the AJMHS and the timing of publication of the content.
All articles submitted for publication are strictly reviewed for their adherence to the following criteria:
Criteria for Publication
-
- Originality
- Importance to researchers or practitioners in the field
- Interest for researchers or practitioners outside the field
- Rigorous methodology with substantial evidence for its conclusions
- Adherence to the highest ethical standards
- Quality and suitability for the Journal
The Review Process
AJMHS uses an established scheme for the evaluation process aiming at a fair, quality-based and rapid article processing (Please refer to "Instructions to Authors" page for more information).
Manuscripts that comply with the main rules of the journal are sent to at least two external reviewers that are asked for their opinion about the suitability of the paper for publication. The reviewed manuscripts are then re-reviewed by the Executive Editorial Board and a decision of rejection or acceptance is taken.
Any information that may indicate an individual or institution should be excluded from the main document to ensure a blinded review process. If the reviewers have any potential competing interests, they must notify the editor before agreeing to review a submission. AJMHS is committed to the highest standards of research and publication ethics. Editors will act in accordance with the relevant international rules of publication ethics (i.e.,COPE guidelines, WAME resources, WMA policies and ORI) if any ethical misconduct is suspected. The Executive Editorial Board encourages reviewers to comment on possible research or publication misconduct such as unethical research design, duplication, plagiarism, etc. Plagiarism is a serious problem and the most common ethical issue afflicting medical writing. AJMHS does not allow any form of plagiarism. In accordance with our journal policy, submitted manuscripts are screened with plagiarism software to detect instances of overlapping and similar text. If the reviewers have any suspect, the editors can provide them information obtained by plagiarism screening tools. An approval of research protocols by an ethics committee in accordance with international agreements (“WMA Declaration of Helsinki - Ethical Principles for Medical Research Involving Human Subjects (last updated: October 2013, Fortaleza, Brazil)”, “Guide for the care and use of laboratory animals (8th edition, 2011)”and/or“International Guiding Principles for Biomedical Research Involving Animals (2012)” is required for all experimental and clinical and drug trial studies. For articles concerning experimental research on humans, a statement should be included that shows informed consent of patients and volunteers was obtained following a detailed explanation of the procedures that they may undergo. Informed consent must also be obtained for case reports. All recognizable photographs of a patient must be accompanied by written permission from the patient for reproduction. Procedures that were performed to eliminate any pain, harm and distress in subjects/animals should clearly be stated. The authors should clearly state their compliance with internationally accepted guidelines and the guidelines issued by the relevant authority of their country. The journal requests a copy of the Ethics Committee Approval received from the relevant authority. AJMHS wants reviewers to treat the manuscripts in confidence. The material of the manuscripts must not be used or shared in any way until they have been published. COPE flowchart in cases of suspected reviewer misconduct. Please refer to COPE ethical guidelines for peer reviewers for "Basic principles to which peer reviewers should adhere" and "Expectations from reviewers". If the reviewers need, they can go through the "Instructions to Authors".
Writing the Review
The purpose of the review is to provide the editors with an expert opinion regarding the quality of the manuscript under consideration and should also supply authors with explicit feedback on how to improve their papers so that they will be acceptable for publication inAJMHS. Although confidential comments to the editors are respected, any remarks that might help to strengthen the paper should be directed to the authors themselves. The best possible review would answer the following questions:
The reviewers can also use the questions below, when reviewing the manuscripts:
- Please state any conflict(s) of interest that you have in relation to the review of this manuscript (state "none" if this is not applicable).
- Do you suspect any research or publication misconduct? If yes, please indicate in detail.
- Does the manuscript contain new and significant information to justify publication? What are the main claims of the paper and how important are they? Are these claims novel? If not, please specify reasons (or papers) that weaken the claims to the originality of this one. Are the claims properly placed in the context of the previous literature?
- Is the title of the article appropriate?
- Does the abstract clearly and accurately describe the content of the article?
- Is the problem significant and concisely stated?
- Are the methods described comprehensively? If a protocol is provided, for example for a randomized controlled trial, are there any important deviations from it? If so, have the authors explained adequately why the deviations occurred?
- Is the results section clear and satisfactory? Do the results support the claims? If not, what other evidence is required?
- Are the interpretations and conclusions justified by the results?
- Would any other experiments or additional information improve the paper? Would the extra work exert a strong influence in the scientific quality of the paper?
- Is adequate and current reference made to other work in the field?
- Who would find this paper of interest? Why?
- Is the language acceptable?
- Please rate the priority for publishing this article (1 is the highest priority, 10 is the lowest priority).
- Is the terminology used appropriately in the text?
- Are the figures or the tables sufficient to present the list of facts or numbers treated in the paper?
- Is it necessary to shorten the article?
- Do you have major remarks? Please explain them in detail.
- Do you have minor remarks? Please explain them in detail.
- If the paper is considered unsuitable for publication in its present form, does the study itself have enough potential to encourage the authors to resubmit a revised version of their manuscript?
- Comments to Editor: Use this space to transfer to the Editor the basis for your recommendation for acceptance or rejection. These comments will NOT be conveyed to the author.
- Comments to Author: Use this space to convey specific feedback to the author on your recommendation. Please, specify in detail all the minor or major remarks referring precisely to the section of the paper, subheading, paragraph number and line number.
The editors make their decision based on the reviewers' comments. There are several types of decision possible:
-
- Accept the manuscript as submitted.
- Accept it with minor revision.
- Invite the authors to submit a major revision of the manuscript before a final decision is reached.
- Reject, typically because it does not fit the criteria outlined above of originality, importance to the field, cross-discipline interest, or sound methodology.
When differences of opinion occur between reviewers, the professional editor and the academic editor weigh all comments and arrive at a balanced decision based on all comments. To assist in this process, the reviewer should provide the editors with as much information as possible. A review that clearly outlines reasons both for and against publication is therefore of as much, or even more, value as one that makes a direct recommendation.
If reviewers appear to disagree fundamentally, the editors may choose to share all the reviews with each of the reviewers and by this means elicit additional comment that may help the editors to make a decision. The academic and professional editors then assess the recommendations and comments of the reviewers alongside comments by the authors and material that may not have been made available to those reviewers. When a paper has been revised in response to comments by reviewers or when authors feel their argument has been misconstrued in review, we ask reviewers to offer additional comments on the revised or contested manuscript. We request that reviewers make themselves available to provide such follow-up advice. We are nevertheless aware that reviewers do not wish to be involved in extended discussions over papers and we keep such consultations to a minimum while still allowing authors a fair hearing.
Confidentiality
The review process is strictly confidential and should be treated as such by reviewers. Because the author may have chosen to exclude some people from this process, no one not directly involved with the manuscript, including colleagues or other experts in the field, should be consulted by the reviewer unless such consultations have first been discussed with the professional editor.
Timely Reviewing
AJMHS believes that an efficient editorial process that results in timely publication provides a valuable service both to authors and to the community at large. We therefore request that reviewers respond promptly, usually within 14 days of receipt of a manuscript. If reviewers need more time, we request that they contact us promptly so that we can keep the authors informed and, if necessary, assign alternate reviewers.
Subscriptions/Permissions and Reprints / Advertisements
Free open access and full-text articles can be accessed and downloaded from the following webpage: http://ajmhs.umed.edu.al Applications for subscriptions, permissions, reprints and advertisements should be made to the following addresses.
Editorial Office
Albanian Journal of Medical and Health Sciences (AJMHS)
Editor in Chief: Prof. Genc Sulcebe
University of Medicine, Tirana (UMT), Str. Dibra, Nr. 371, AL1005, Tirana, Albania
Tel/Fax.: ++35542364432, E-mail: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
Publisher
The Rector of the University of Medicine, Tirana
University of Medicine, Tirana (UMT), Str. Dibra, Nr. 371, AL1005, Tirana, Albania
Tel/Fax.: ++35542364432, E-mail: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
website: http://www.umed.edu.al
Material Disclaimer
All opinions and reports within the articles that are published at the Albanian Journal of Medical and Health Sciences are the personal opinions of the authors. The Editor and the publisher of the AJMHS do not accept any responsibility for these articles.
Advertising policies
The journal accepts display and classified advertising. Frequency discounts and special position are available. The journal reserves the right to reject any advertisement considered unsuitable according to the set policies of the journal. The appearance of advertising or product information in the various sections in the journal does not constitute an endorsement or approval by the journal and/or its publisher of the quality or value of the said product or of claims made for it by its manufacturer.
Subscriptions
AJMHS is published three times a year and is available on subscription. For further information contact Editorial Office:
Albanian Journal of Medical and Health Sciences, University of Medicine, Tirana,
Str. Dibra, Nr. 371, AL1005, Tirana, Albania
Tel/Fax.: ++35542364432,
Editorial e-mail: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
website: http://ajmhs.umed.edu.al