Editorial policy

Purpose and scope

Medicinski Glasnik is a double-blind, peer‑reviewed journal that publishes medical and biomedical research, evidence syntheses, and scholarly discussion. Editorial decisions are based on scientific quality, methodological rigor, ethical conduct, and clarity of reporting.

Editorial independence

The Editor‑in‑Chief has full responsibility for the editorial content of the journal and for all editorial decisions. The Publisher does not interfere with editorial decisions on individual manuscripts.

Confidentiality

All submitted manuscripts, correspondence, and reviewer reports are treated as confidential. Authors, reviewers, and editors are expected to keep the peer‑review process confidential and not to share manuscript content, reviewer reports, or editorial correspondence outside the process, unless explicit permission has been granted by the journal.

Initial assessment (editorial triage)

Each submission undergoes an initial editorial assessment to determine whether it meets basic requirements and fits the scope of the journal. At this stage the journal assesses, at minimum: scope alignment, originality, clarity of reporting, ethical statements/approvals where applicable, required registrations, completeness of mandatory statements, and overall scientific quality.

Manuscripts may be returned to authors before external review if:
• the manuscript is outside the scope of the journal;
• essential normative requirements are not met (ethics/consent, trial registration, protocol registration where required, reporting checklists where required);
• the submission is incomplete (missing required files/sections/statements);
• anonymisation is insufficient for double‑blind review;
• the manuscript does not follow the journal template and structure;
• there are serious concerns about integrity, redundancy, or authorship.

Peer review model

The journal uses double‑blind peer review for manuscripts sent to external review. Manuscripts are typically evaluated by at least two independent external reviewers.

Reviewers are asked to evaluate:
• relevance and contribution to the field;
• methodological and statistical soundness;
• transparency and completeness of reporting;
• interpretation and strength of conclusions;
• ethical aspects (where applicable);
• quality of presentation and clarity.

Reviewer conduct and responsibilities

Reviewers must declare any conflicts of interest and decline review when a conflict exists. Reviewers must treat manuscripts as confidential, must not use information obtained through peer review for personal advantage, and must provide constructive, objective, and respectful feedback. The journal may exclude reviewers who breach confidentiality, exhibit inappropriate conduct, or repeatedly provide unprofessional reviews.

Reviewer suggestions and exclusions

Authors may suggest potential reviewers and may request exclusion of specific reviewers with justification. Suggested reviewers should not be recent co‑authors, close collaborators, or members of the same institution, and should have appropriate expertise. The final selection of reviewers is at the discretion of the Editor‑in‑Chief and handling editors.

Statistical methods review

Where appropriate, the journal may conduct an additional statistical assessment. The Editor-in-Chief may invite a statistical editor or an independent statistical expert to review the study design, analytical approach, and statistical reporting, including the suitability of methods, handling of missing data and multiple comparisons where relevant, clarity of effect estimates and measures of uncertainty, and whether the conclusions are supported by the analyses. This statistical review may be requested at any stage of editorial evaluation, alongside external peer review or prior to acceptance.

Decisions regarding manuscripts

The journal may issue the following decisions:
• Accept
• Minor revision
• Major revision
• Reject (after completion of the peer‑review process)
• Desk reject (without external peer review)
• Desk reject with invitation to resubmit (after technical/formal corrections)

Desk reject may be applied when a manuscript is out of scope, fails to meet basic standards of scientific quality or reporting, has major methodological limitations, raises serious concerns regarding research integrity or publication ethics, or does not comply with normative good publication practice and the journal’s policies.

Desk reject with invitation to resubmit may be used when a submission has potentially publishable content but does not meet technical, formatting, administrative, or documentation requirements (for example missing files, missing mandatory statements or registrations, incomplete reporting documentation, or insufficient anonymisation for double‑blind review). In such cases, authors may be invited to correct the issues and submit a revised version as a new submission.

The Editor‑in‑Chief is responsible for the final editorial decision.

Plagiarism screening and integrity checks

All submissions are screened for plagiarism using Turnitin. The journal may also conduct integrity checks, including figure and image checks, and may request original underlying files during peer review or prior to acceptance.

Where appropriate, authors may be asked to provide:
• original, uncropped, and unprocessed image files (for example for gels/blots/microscopy);
• underlying datasets, protocols, or analysis code;
• documentation supporting the integrity of presented results.

Failure to provide requested supporting materials may influence editorial decisions.

Research ethics and consent

Research involving humans or animals must comply with applicable ethical standards and regulations. Manuscripts must include, where applicable:
• ethics committee/IRB approval (name, institution, approval number/date) or a clear justification if approval was not required;
• confirmation of informed consent where relevant;
• animal ethics approval and welfare compliance where relevant.

Case Reports must include a statement confirming written informed consent for publication.

Clinical trial registration and systematic review protocol registration

For manuscripts reporting Randomized Controlled Trials (RCTs), trial registration in a publicly accessible registry is mandatory prior to submission. The manuscript must include the registry name and registration number.

For manuscripts submitted as Systematic Review and Meta-analysis (including scoping reviews and related evidence syntheses in this category), protocol registration in a publicly accessible registry prior to submission is mandatory (for example PROSPERO or OSF). The manuscript must provide the registry name and registration identifier, and must clearly describe and justify any deviations from the registered protocol.

Reporting guidelines

The journal supports established reporting standards. Where applicable, authors must submit the relevant reporting checklist and supporting documentation (for example CONSORT, STROBE, PRISMA, CARE, STARD, ARRIVE, COREQ, SQUIRE). For scoping reviews in the Systematic Review category, authors should provide the relevant checklist (for example PRISMA‑ScR) and a flow diagram.

Conflicts of interest

Authors must disclose all financial and non‑financial conflicts of interest. Editors and reviewers must also declare conflicts of interest and recuse themselves when a conflict exists.

Authorship criteria and changes to authorship

The journal follows standard authorship criteria: authorship is limited to individuals who made substantial contributions, participated in drafting or critical revision, approved the final version, and agree to be accountable for the work.

Requests to add, remove, or reorder authors after submission must be justified and must include written confirmation from all authors, including those being added or removed. If an authorship dispute arises, the journal may suspend editorial processing until the matter is resolved, and may request institutional clarification where appropriate.

Preprints

The journal considers manuscripts previously posted as preprints. Authors must disclose preprint posting at submission and provide the preprint link or identifier. If cited, preprints should be clearly identified as not peer‑reviewed.

Use of AI tools

If AI tools were used for writing, editing, translation, or analysis, authors must disclose the tool name and purpose. Authors remain fully responsible for accuracy, originality, and integrity. AI tools must not be listed as authors.

Post‑publication updates: corrections, expressions of concern, and retractions

If concerns arise after publication, the journal may issue corrections (to address errors that do not invalidate the main findings), expressions of concern (when an investigation is ongoing or unresolved), or retractions (when findings are unreliable due to major error or misconduct).

Post‑publication notices are clearly identified and linked to the original article record.

DOI and permanence of the scholarly record

Published items receive a DOI to support permanent identification and citation.

Appeals and complaints

Authors may submit appeals against editorial decisions and may submit complaints regarding editorial processes (including delays) or publication ethics. Appeals and complaints are handled fairly and confidentially. The journal aims to acknowledge receipt within five working days and to provide a considered response as soon as reasonably possible. If the Editor‑in‑Chief is the subject of a complaint, the matter may be handled through an alternative independent pathway designated by the journal.