Editorial Policies

Focus and Scope

Clinical Management Issues is an open access, peer-reviewed journal published by SEEd Medical Publishers (print ISSN = 1973-4832; online ISSN = 2283-3137).

The aim of the published case reports is to expand medical knowledge, allowing a better explanation of the practical application of a clinical guideline, or including an up-to-date review of medical knowledge in that field, or helping doctors to make better decisions in a “grey area”, or explaining how to manage a disease with an integrated approach between different specialists involved.

Clinical Management Issues also publishes unusual case reports (i.e. unusual side effects or adverse interactions involving medications, unexpected or unusual presentations of a disease, etc.), articles on clinical management of a disease, case series, congress reports, retrospective analyses, applied research, and clinical trials. Acceptance rate of submitted articles is about 90%.

Content is subject to peer-review and is editorially independent. This journal does not charge article processing charges or submission charges. Authors are asked to state any professional and financial situations that might be perceived as causing a conflict of interest with respect to integrity of content. The Declaration of Financial Competing Interests, that should be filled, signed and sent to the Publisher, is downloadable here.

 

Section Policies

Editorial

Editorials are short articles on issues of topical importance. We encourage our editorial writers to express their opinions, giving the author the opportunity to present criticism or address controversy. The intention is very much that the article should offer a personal perspective on a topic of recent interest.

(Figures and tables can be included in editorials, if necessary).

Word count: not less than 800 words

For full details on the manuscript organization, see the Author Guidelines.

Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Unchecked Peer Reviewed

Case report

Original case reports should be described starting from a possible introduction on the disease of interest, and following with a thorough description of the case, the results of the diagnostic tests, the outcomes, and the discussion, which correlates the case with the scientific literature on the same topic. The case report should include a box with “Why do we describe this case”, and a final box with the key points. It may also include a box with “What should the clinician ask him/herself or the patient”, a figure with the diagnostic-therapeutic algorithm, and a box with the recommendations, or the most common errors, or the myths to be busted, or the traps to be avoided.

If published in a supplement, the peer-review process is not undertaken.

Word count: not less than 1800 words (excluding abstract and references)

For full details on the manuscript organization, see the Author Guidelines. 

Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed

Case series

A series of case reports on the same pathology or therapy used should be described starting from a possible introduction on the topic, and following with a thorough description of the cases, the methodology used to select the patients (if present), the results of the diagnostic tests and the outcomes (possibly shown in a table), and the discussion, which correlates the findings with the scientific literature on the same topic.The case series may include a figure with the diagnostic-therapeutic algorithm, a box with the recommendations, or the most common errors, or the myths to be busted, or the traps to be avoided or the key points.

If published in a supplement, the peer-review process is not undertaken.

Word count: not less than 2500 words (excluding abstract and references).

For full details on the manuscript organization, see the Author Guidelines.

Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed

Clinical management

Articles on clinical management generally give an overview on the management of a specific pathology or a group of diseases, focusing on the differential diagnoses and/or the possible treatments. The information given should be updated according to the most recent guidelines. The article on clinical management should include a final box with the key points. It may also include a figure with the diagnostic-therapeutic algorithm, and a box with the recommendations, or the most common errors, or the myths to be busted, or the traps to be avoided.

If published in a supplement, the peer-review process is not undertaken.

Word count: not less than 2500 words (excluding abstract and references)

For full details on the manuscript organization, see the Author Guidelines.

Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed

Brief report

Brief Reports include small-scale research, preliminary results or pilot study addressed to a discrete research question. Scientific rigor and formal accuracy must be guaranteed. Brief reports should bring out a message adequate for the journal’s scope and of particular interest to the community.

Word count: not less than 2000 words

For full details on the manuscript organization, see the Author Guidelines.

Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Unchecked Peer Reviewed

Retrospective analysis

Retrospective analyses should follow the scheme: introduction; patients and methods; results; and discussion. There are no reference limits.

Word countabout 5000 words (references included)

If published in a supplement, the peer-review process is not undertaken.

For full details on the manuscript, see the Author Guidelines

Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed

Clinical trial

Original clinical trials should follow the scheme: introduction; materials and methods; results; and discussion. There are no reference limits.

Word count: approximately 5000 (references included)

If published in a supplement, the peer-review process is not undertaken.

For full details on the manuscript, see the Author Guidelines

Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed

Applied Research

Original articles about applied research on innovative drugs should follow the scheme: introduction; materials and methods; results; and discussion. There are no reference limits. Tables "Key points" (Unmet need, Drugs studied, and Innovative aspects) and "In vitro tests: an overview" should be added.

Word count: approximately 5000 (references included)

If published in a supplement, the peer-review process is not undertaken.

For full details on the manuscript, see the Author Guidelines

 

Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed

Congress report

A congress report is the description of a speech occurred during a Congress or a meeting. It should include a final box with the key points emerged during the relation and may include some paragraphs containing questions and answers.

For full details on the manuscript, see the Author Guidelines

Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Unchecked Peer Reviewed

Acknowledgements to reviewers

Unchecked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Unchecked Peer Reviewed
 

Peer Review Process

This journal uses double-blind peer review: therefore, Authors’ identities are concealed from the Reviewers, and Reviewers’ identities are concealed from the Authors, throughout the review process. A summary of this process is available here.

1.       Author submits the manuscript

The Author usually submits the paper via OJS online system. Occasionally, journal may accept submissions by email.

2.       Managing Editor’s first assessment

All manuscripts receive an initial review by the Managing Editor, who checks:

  • Quality and consistency;
  • Plagiarism, using the iThenticate software and following the COPE guidelines;
  • Anonymization consistent with the double-blind peer review; and
  • Adherence to the journal’s Author Guidelines.

If the manuscript is not appropriate for the journal or is not sufficiently original and interesting may be promptly rejected. Sometimes, if the paper is not suitable for the journal, the Editor may suggest to submit the manuscript to a more appropriate journal.

Other manuscripts are sent to the peer review process.

3.       Peer review process

The Managing Editor identifies possible Reviewers from SEEd database and PubMed and sends invitations. Two to four Reviewers are required. About two weeks are given to the Reviewers to complete the review, give their recommendation (accept, decline, revisions required, resubmit for review, or resubmit elsewhere), and submit the checklist via web.

4.       Managing Editor’s evaluation

The Managing Editor receives comments and recommendations from the Reviewers. If the Reviewers’ comments differ widely, an additional Reviewer may be invited in order to take a final decision on the manuscript.

The final Managing Editor’s decision can be:

  • Accept submission without editorial revisions.
  • Revisions required: the Author is invited to revise the manuscript to address specific concerns. Revised manuscripts are evaluated by the Managing Editor.
  • Resubmit for review: the Author is invited to substantially revise the manuscript in terms of consistency, writing, and organization before reconsideration. Resubmitted manuscripts are reviewed by the Managing Editor and Reviewers.
  • Resubmit elsewhere: the Author is invited to submit the manuscript to a more appropriate journal.
  • Decline submission: the paper is not adequate for publication in the journal, usually because of insufficient conceptual advance, major technical and/or interpretational problems, poor quality, or ethical problems.

Once the final decision is taken, the Managing Editor informs the Author. In all case, the Reviewer’s comments are sent to the Author.

5.       Next steps

If the manuscript is accepted, the Managing Editor sends it to the editing process and checks any legal and administrative documentation. Finally, the paper is published.

 

Publication Frequency

From September 2016, Clinical Management Issues (CMI) is published continuously.

 

Article Purchase

Readers without a subscription may still purchase individual articles. The following payment options and fees are available.

Purchase Article: 7.50 (EUR)

The payment of this fee will enable you to view, download, and print this article.

 

Open Access policy

Clinical Management Issues is an open access journal that provides immediate open access to all of its articles on the website. Users have the right to read, download, copy, distribute, print, search, or link to the full texts of all the articles published.

  1. All contents are freely available as html files for issues from 2012; 6 (3); as pdf files for previous issues.
  2. CMI's Open Access without delay (e.g. no embargo period).
  3. CMI's funding model does not charge authors, readers or their institutions for access.

 

Creative Commons Licence



Clinical Management Issues
- https://journals.edizioniseed.it/index.php/cmi - is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial 4.0 License.

 

Editorial Board

DIRETTORE RESPONSABILE
Lorenzo Pradelli. MD. AdRes Health Economics & Outcomes Research, Torino, Italy

ADVISORY BOARD
Oscar Alabiso. Oncologia Medica Università del Piemonte Orientale “A. Avogadro”. Direttore SCDU Oncologia Medica. AO “Maggiore della carità”, Novara
Luigi Balbi. Già Primario Servizio di Medicina Interna, Ospedale S. Anna Torino
Diego Beltrutti. Primario del Servizio di Anestesia e Rianimazione ASL 18 Bra. Presidente del WSPC (World Society of Pain Clinicians)
Vito Borzì. Primario della I Divisione di Medicina dell'Ospedale Vittorio Emanuele II di Catania
Francesco Cipollini. Direttore UOC di Medicina Interna. Ospedale di Amandola (AP)
Giuseppe Civardi. Direttore UOC di Medicina Interna, Po di Fiorenzuola d'Arda (Piacenza)
Fabio Di Stefano. Dipartimento di Medicina Interna, Unità Operativa di Allergologia e Fisiopatologia Respiratoria, Azienda USL ed Università G. D’Annunzio di Chieti
Paolo Ghiringhelli. Primario Azienda Ospedaliera Busto Arsizio
Claudio Marengo. SC Medicina Interna, Ospedale Santa Croce, Moncalieri (TO)
Andrea Pizzini. Medico di Famiglia, Torino
Andrea Ungar. Centro di Riferimento Regionale per l’Ipertensione Arteriosa dell’Anziano della Toscana. SOD Cardiologia Geriatrica. Azienda Ospedaliero Universitaria Careggi, Firenze
Orazio Zanetti. Responsabile Dipartimento Alzheimer IRCCS Istituto S. Cuore, Brescia

MANAGING EDITOR
Laura Fascio Pecetto. SEEd Medical Publishers, Torino - Italy
Email: l.fasciopecetto@edizioniseed.it

 

Ethical Guidelines

Conflict of interest

CMI requires authors to declare to the editors any competing financial interests in relation to manuscript submitted. Competing interests are defined as those of a financial nature that, through their potential influence on behavior or content or from perception of such potential influences, could undermine the objectivity, integrity or perceived value of a publication. They can include any of the following:

-       Funding: research support by organizations that may gain or lose financially through this publication.

-       Employment: recent, present or anticipated employment by any organization that may gain or lose financially through this publication.

-       Personal financial interests: Stocks or shares in companies that may gain or lose financially through publication; consultation fees or other forms of remuneration from organizations that may gain or lose financially; patents or patent applications whose value may be affected by publication.

These declarations will be published in the Disclosure at the beginning of the html form and in the lower right corner of the first page in pdf form.

The corresponding author, on behalf of all authors of the paper, is required to fill and sign the specific form.

 

Confidentiality

In case reports, the privacy of patients should be respected. The identification of the patient has to be impossible. If, for scientific reasons, the patient’s identity shouldn’t be disguised, the authors should require written consent from patients: the document should be at SEEd’s disposal. The Consent Request form should be asked to the editorial staff (l.fasciopecetto@edizioniseed.it).

 

Informed consent

Every clinical trial submitted to CMI should include a statement that the study obtained ethics approval by the ethical committee (or a simple acknowledgment, or a statement that it was not required), reporting also the name of the ethics committee and the ID, and a statement that participants gave informed consent before taking part.

 

Human/Animal Rights

For articles concerning research on human beings, Authors should also provide assurance that the study protocol conformed to the 1975 Declaration of Helsinki.

For studies involving animal experimentation, Authors should provide assurance that all animals received humane care according to the criteria described in the "Guide for the Care and Use of Laboratory Animals" published by the National Institutes of Health and available at https://grants.nih.gov/grants/olaw/Guide-for-the-Care-and-use-of-laboratory-animals.pdf .

 

Plagiarism

CMI follows the COPE guidelines concerning the handling of plagiarism (http://publicationethics.org/resources/flowcharts). Therefore, if a submitted article contains plagiarism, i.e. unattributed use of large portions of text and/or data, presented as if they were by the author, CMI editors will contact the authors requiring an explanation. If this is not satisfactory, the journal may contact the author’s institution.

Crossref Similarity Check

Redundant publications will be managed in the same way, once again following COPE guidelines (http://publicationethics.org/resources/flowcharts).

SEEd Medical Publishers uses the iThenticate software to detect instances of overlapping and similar text in submitted manuscripts. Wherever you see the “Similarity Check Deposited” or “Similarity Check Depositor” logos, you can be reassured that the publisher whose content you are reading is committed to actively combating plagiarism and publishing original research. View SEEd Medical Publishers’s plagiarism policy above. To find out more about Similarity Check visit www.crossref.org/crosscheck/index.html

 

Appeals and complaints

Clinical Management Issues adheres to COPE guidelines regarding appeals to editorial decisions and complaints.

 

Authorship

An 'author' is generally considered to be someone who has made substantive intellectual contributions to a published study. According to the ICMJE guidelines, to qualify as an author one should have:

  1. Substantial contributions to the conception or design of the work; or the acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data for the work; AND
  2. Drafting the work or revising it critically for important intellectual content; AND
  3. Final approval of the version to be published; AND
  4. Agreement to be accountable for all aspects of the work in ensuring that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work are appropriately investigated and resolved.

Acquisition of funding, collection of data, or general supervision of the research group, alone, does not usually justify authorship.

Acknowledgements

All contributors who do not meet the criteria for authorship should be listed in an ‘Acknowledgements’ section. Examples of those who might be acknowledged include a person who provided purely technical help or writing assistance.

Medical writers

The involvement of medical writers or anyone else who assisted with the preparation of the manuscript content should be acknowledged, along with their source of funding, as described in the European Medical Writers Association (EMWA) guidelines. The role of medical writers should be acknowledged explicitly in the ‘Acknowledgements’.

 

Peer Reviewers Guidelines

Submitted manuscripts are reviewed by two to four experts. CMI operates using a double-blind peer review system. Reviewers should ensure that their reports are anonymous and do not include identifiable information such as tracked changes or comments.

Peer reviewers will be asked to select their recommendation among the following:

  • Accept submission without editorial revisions.
  • Revisions required: the author is invited to revise the manuscript to address specific concerns.
  • Resubmit for review: the author is invited to substantially revise the manuscript in terms of consistency, writing, and organization before reconsideration.
  • Resubmit elsewhere: the author is invited to submit the manuscript to a more appropriate journal.
  • Decline submission: the paper is not adequate for publication in the journal.

 

They should also alert the editors of any issues relating to author misconduct such as plagiarism and unethical behavior.

Publication of research articles and reviews by CMI is dependent primarily on their validity and coherence, as judged by peer reviewers and editors. The reviewers may also be asked whether the writing is comprehensible and how interesting they consider the article to be.

 

Points to consider

Reviewers are asked to provide detailed, constructive comments that will help the editors make a decision on publication and the author(s) improve their manuscript. A key issue is whether the work has serious flaws that should preclude its publication, or whether there are additional data required to support the conclusions drawn. Where possible, reviewers should provide references to substantiate their comments.

Reviewers should address the points below and indicate whether they consider any required revisions to be major compulsory revisions (if further analysis is required that may change the conclusions or additional controls are required to support the claims or the interpretations) or minor essential revisions

  • Is the question posed important and well defined?
  • Are the data sound and well controlled?
  • Is the interpretation (discussion and conclusion) well balanced and supported by the data?
  • Are the methods appropriate and well described, and are sufficient details provided to allow others to evaluate the work?
  • What are the strengths and weaknesses of the methods?
  • Can the writing, organization, tables and figures be improved?
  • Are there any ethical or competing interests issues you would like to raise?

 

Reviewers are reminded of the importance of timely reviews.
Any manuscript sent for peer review is a confidential document and should remain so until it is formally published.

All peer reviewers are asked to declare their competing interests in relation to the paper they are reviewing. The peer reviewer declaration is included in the confidential comment report.

In the context of peer review, a competing interest exists when the reviewer’s interpretation of data or presentation of information may be influenced by their personal or financial relationship with other people or organizations. Reviewers should disclose any financial competing interests but also any non-financial competing interests that may cause them embarrassment were they to become public after the publication of the manuscript.

 

Reviewers are asked to complete a declaration, after considering the following questions:

  • In the past five years, have you received reimbursements, fees, funding, or salary from an organization that may in any way gain or lose financially from the publication of this paper, either now or in the future?
  • Do you hold any stocks or shares in an organization that may in any way gain or lose financially from the publication of this paper, either now or in the future?
  • Do you hold or are you currently applying for any patents relating to the content of the manuscript? Have you received reimbursements, fees, funding, or salary from an organization that holds or has applied for patents relating to the content of the manuscript?
  • Do you have any other financial competing interests?
  • Do you have any non-financial competing interests in relation to this paper?