Editorial Policies

Publication Frequency

Sanamed medical journal is published continuously throughout the year. Upon acceptance, articles are first published Online first (Online First is a publication for articles that are to appear online before being printed ) through ASSISTANT system for journals online editing and publishing and Serbian citation index. Sanamed journal is published in electronic and printed format, three times a year. Additionally, supplement issues may be published upon the Editorial board’s decision.


Journal Sanamed is published under an Open Access licence. All its content is available free of charge. Users can read, download, copy, distribute, print, search the full text of articles, as well as to establish HTML links to them, without having to seek the consent of the author or publisher. Articles accepted or published in their final form in Sanamed may be freely deposited to any repository, including academic social networks.

The right to use content without consent does not release the users from the obligation to give the credit to the journal and its content in a manner described under Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.


Once a manuscript is submitted to Journal, the editorial office conducts a preliminary check with respect to plagiarism. The authors should ensure that they write the entire manuscript themselves, and if the authors have used the research results and/or words of others it has to be appropriately cited or quoted.

Plagiarism in all its forms constitutes unethical publishing behavior and is unacceptable. Plagiarism and self-plagiarism are not allowed, and they will be dealt with according to the COPE guidelines
All the submitted manuscripts will be checked for potential plagiarism by iThenticate Plagiarism Detection Software.
If a published manuscript, which passed the initial plagiarism check, subsequently found to be plagiarized will be subjected to ICMJE’s policy of publication of correction, republication or retraction depending on the extent of misconduct.


Publication decisions: The editor is responsible for deciding which of the articles submitted to the journal should be published. The editor may confer with other editors or reviewers in making this decision.

Fair play:  An editor at any time evaluate manuscripts for their intellectual content without regard to race, gender, sexual orientation, religious belief, ethnic origin, citizenship, or political philosophy of the authors.

Confidentiality: The editor and any editorial staff must not disclose any information about a submitted manuscript to anyone other than the corresponding author, reviewers, potential reviewers, other editorial advisers, and the publisher, as appropriate.

Disclosure and conflicts of interest: Unpublished materials disclosed in a submitted manuscript must not be used in an editor’s own research without the express written consent of the author.

In the event that the publisher or editors become aware of any allegation of misconduct in connection with a published article in the journal, Sanamed, the COPE guidelines for handling the allegation will be followed.

In accordance with law, digital copies of all published volumes are archived in the legal deposit library of the National Library of Serbia and concurrently in the Repository of SCIndeks – The Serbian Citation Index as the primary full text database.

Disclosure of potential conflicts of interest
Authors must disclose all relationships or interests that could have direct or potential influence or impart bias on the work. Although an author may not feel there is any conflict, the disclosure of relationships and interests provides a more complete and
transparent process, leading to an accurate and objective assessment of the work. Awareness of real or perceived conflicts of interest is a perspective to which the readers are entitled. This is not meant to imply that a financial relationship with an organization
that sponsored the research or compensation received for consultancy work is inappropriate. Also, interests that go beyond financial interests and compensation (non-financial interests) that may be important to readers should be disclosed. These may include but
are not limited to personal relationships or competing interests directly or indirectly tied to this research, or professional interests or personal beliefs that may influence your research. The corresponding author collects the conflict of interest disclosure forms from
all authors. In author collaborations where formal agreements for representation allow it, it is sufficient for the corresponding author to sign the disclosure form on behalf of all authors.

Research involving human participants or animals
Statement of Human Rights When reporting studies that involve human participants, authors should include a statement that the studies have been approved by the appropriate institutional and/or national research ethics committee and have been performed in accordance with the ethical standards as laid down in the 1964 Declaration of Helsinki and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards. If doubt exists whether the research was conducted in accordance with the 1964 Helsinki Declaration or comparable standards, the authors must explain the reasons for their approach, and demonstrate that the independent ethics committee or institutional review board explicitly approved the doubtful aspects of the study. 
The welfare of animals used for research must be respected. When reporting experiments on animals, authors should indicate whether the international, national, and/or institutional guidelines for the care and use of animals have been followed, and that the studies have been approved by a research ethics committee at the institution or practice at which the studies were conducted (where such a committee exists).
The articles must have the following statements:

Ethical approval: All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the institutional and/or national research committee’s ethical standards and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

For retrospective studies formal consent is not required. 

For studies with animals, the following statement should be included:
Ethical approval: All applicable international, national, and/or institutional guidelines for the care and use of animals were followed.


Corrections are published upon request and after editorial review. Changes to published articles that affect the interpretation and conclusion of the article, but do not fully invalidate the article, will, at the Editor(s)’ discretion, be corrected via publication of a Correction that is indexed and linked to the original article. On rare occasions, when the interpretation or conclusion of an article is substantially undermined, it may be necessary for published articles to be retracted. Retractions are published upon request of authors or their institutions and may also be published by the Journal following a determination of scientific misconduct. Retraction notices are indexed and linked to the original article. The original article is watermarked as retracted and the title is prefixed with “Retracted Article”. Notes of Concern are published in response to editorial concerns relating to scientific or publishing misconduct by authors or reviewers or to alert the scientific community of an ongoing investigation.


Submitted manuscripts may be rejected without detailed comments after an initial review by the editorial board if the manuscripts are considered inappropriate or of insufficient scientific priority for publication in Sanamed. All other manuscripts undergo a complete review. Criteria for acceptance include originality, the validity of data, clarity of writing, strength of the conclusions, and the potential importance of the work in a field of sciences. Submitted manuscripts will not be reviewed if they do not conform to standard English usage and the Instructions for authors.


According to ICMJE, authorship is based on the following criteria:

  • Substantial contributions to the conception or design of the work; or the acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data for the work
  • Drafting the work or revising it critically for important intellectual content
  • Final approval of the version to be published
  • 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.

In addition to being accountable for the parts of the work he or she has done, an author should be able to identify which co-authors are responsible for specific other parts of the work. In addition, authors should have confidence in the integrity of the contributions of their co-authors. All those designated as authors should meet all four criteria for authorship, and all who meet the four criteria should be identified as authors. Those who do not meet all four criteria should be acknowledged.

The corresponding author is the one individual who takes primary responsibility for communication with the journal during the manuscript submission, peer review, and publication process.

Withdrawal Policy
Withdrawing a paper after it has been accepted for publication is generally discouraged. However, very occasionally there may be circumstances that require a paper to be withdrawn. It can only occur under exceptional circumstances. such as discovering significant errors or misconduct in the research or if the authors are no longer able to proceed with publication due to unforeseen circumstances. In all cases, our official archives at the National Library of Serbia and
concurrently in the Repository of SCIndeks – The Serbian Citation Index will retain all article versions, including retracted or otherwise removed articles.

Withdrawal Before Acceptance: Manuscripts may be withdrawn within 5 days of initial submission for any reason.

Withdrawal after acceptance: Manuscripts may be withdrawn only for justified reasons, such as violations of professional ethical codes, errors in scientific content, multiple submissions, bogus claims of authorship, plagiarism, or fraudulent use of data.
Withdrawn means that the article content (in PDF) is removed and replaced with a PDF stating that the article has been withdrawn with a link to the current policy document.

Retraction of Article
In rare cases, when the interpretation or conclusion of the article is significantly violated, when it is a violation of ethical principles, multiple submissions, plagiarism, fraudulent use of data, false representation of the author, etc., it may be necessary to withdraw the published articles.
Retraction notices are indexed linked to the original article. The original article is watermarked as retracted and the title is prefixed with “Retracted Article”

Article removal
Extremely rarely it may be necessary to retrieve an article from an online database. This will only happen in cases where the material is obviously defamatory, violates the legal rights of others, is the subject of a court order or where there is a reasonable expectation that it will be, or where acting on the article might seriously endanger one’s health. In these circumstances, while the metadata (Title and Authors) will be retained, the text will be replaced with a screen indicating the article has been removed for legal reasons.

Article replacement

In cases where the article, due to the actions that could follow if the knowledge presented in it, is applied, might pose a major health risk the authors of the original article may wish to withdraw the defective original and replace it with a corrected version. In these situations the procedures for retraction will be followed and the database retraction notice will publish a link to the corrected re-published article.

Changes to authorship

It is necessary for the authors to determine the number and sequence of authors in the paper before sending the paper to the Sanamed journal. Any deletion, addition or change of author names in the authorship list should be done before the manuscript is accepted and only if approved by the journal editor. If the authors still want changes, they need to provide the editor with the following information: (a) reason for changing the list of authors and (b) written confirmation (e-mail, letter) from all authors that they agree with the addition, removal or rearrangement. In the case of adding or removing an author, this includes confirmation of the addition or removal of the author.

Only in exceptional circumstances will the Editor consider adding, deleting, or rearranging authors after manuscript acceptance. While the editor is considering the request, publication of the manuscript will be suspended. If the manuscript has already been published in an online edition, all requests approved by
the editor will result in a correction.


Sanamed journal accepts revenue from a variety of sources to ensure broad and affordable access while maintaining high quality standards and complete editorial independence. Sources of revenue include subscriptions from institutions and individuals for print editions of journals; donations; and author fees.

Appeals and complaints
This procedure applies to complaints that relate to content, procedures or policies that are the responsibility of Sanamed  journal  or our editorial staff. Complaints may provide an opportunity and a spur for improvement, and we aim to respond quickly, courteously, and constructively.
Complaints should be directly emailed to sanamednp2006@gmail.com, and will be dealt with confidentially

Appeal against a rejection
If you want to ask the Editor to reconsider a rejection of a manuscript, you should contact the Editor by email sanamednp2006@gmail.com. In practice, the decisions on appeals often take 7 days. Only one appeal is permitted for each manuscript. Final decisions on appeals will be made by the Editors in-chief.

An appeal against a rejection decision on a manuscript will only be considered if the authors can demonstrate that an error that determined the final decision has been made – by a referee or the Editors – during review or if important additional data can be provided or if a convincing case of bias in the process can be demonstrated.

Authors who wish to appeal an editorial decision should submit a letter of appeal to the journal. Include the manuscript Title and tracking number in the email subject line and the appeal letter.

If appeals are successful, then authors will be given instructions on how to proceed. If an appeal merits further consideration, the Editor may send the authors’ response and the revised paper out for further peer review.

For complaints about processes, such as the time required for review, the Editor will consider and respond to the complainant as soon as possible.

For complaints about publication ethics or scientific content, the Editor will follow guidelines published by the Committee on Publication Ethics.

If the complainant remains dissatisfied with the handling of their complaint, it will be escalated to the journal’s editorial and publishing management team for investigation.


For all manuscripts that include details, images, or videos relating to an individual person, written informed consent for the publication of these details must be obtained from that person (or their parent or legal guardian in the case of children under 18). If the person has died, consent for publication must be obtained
from their next of kin. The manuscript must include a statement that written informed consent for publication was obtained. 

Authors can use the Sanamed consent form to obtain consent for publication, or a consent form from their own institution or region if appropriate. The consent form must state that the details/images/videos will be freely available on the internet and may be seen by the general public. The consent form must be made

available to the Editor if requested, and will be treated confidentially.

In cases where images are entirely unidentifiable and there are no details on individuals reported within the manuscript, consent for publication of images may not be required. The final decision on whether consent to publish is required lies with the Editor.


If you are interested in advertising any of your products, services and/or offers, we are providing you with the following options in our Journal:
FULL A4 PAPER SIZE (price in dinars)

(for single issue)
(for 3 issues)
Black and White advertisement30.00070.000
Color Advertisement40.000100.000

Advertisers are entitled to free annual subscription.

For further information, please contact the Editorial Office at email sanamednp2006@gmail.com

Sanamed journal offer Print and Online Advertising

The opinions expressed in Sanamed journal are those of the authors and contributors, and do not always reflect those of the Association of medical doctors “Sanamed”, the Editorial board of Sanamed journal or the organization to which the authors are affiliated.

The mention of trade names, commercial products or organizations, as well as the inclusion of advertisements in the Sanamed journal does not imply the support of the Publisher (Association of Doctors “Sanamed”), members of the Editorial board or the organization to which the authors are affiliated. The final responsibility for the use and dosage of drugs as well as the interpretation of the published material mentioned in Sanamed is taken over by the medical practitioner, and the Editorial Board and the Publisher cannot accept responsibility for damage caused by any errors

or omissions in the Journal.

Sanamed does not endorse any company, product or service that appears in their advertising. Advertising is separated from content. Advertisers and sponsors have no prior knowledge of the Journal’s content, nor do editors have prior knowledge of advertisers. The content is never changed to adapt to advertisements, and Advertisers and sponsors have no influence on the editorial policy. The publisher may reject or cancel the advertisement at any time. Sanamed has no influence on other online links that readers can reach through advertising banners on the Journal’s website.


Editors have responsibilities toward the authors who provide the content of the journals, the  peer reviewers who comment on the suitability of manuscripts for publication, the journal’s readers and the scientific community and the public as a whole. 


  • Providing guidelines to authors for preparing and submitting manuscripts
  • Providing a clear statement of the Journal’s policies on authorship criteria
  • Treating all authors with fairness, courtesy, objectivity, honesty, and transparency
  • Protecting the confidentiality of every author’s work
  • Making editorial decisions with reasonable speed and communicating them in a clear and constructive manner
  • Being vigilant in avoiding the possibility of editors and/or referees delaying a manuscript for suspect reasons
  • Establishing clear guidelines for authors regarding acceptable practices for sharing experimental materials and information, particularly those required to replicate the research, before and after publication
  • Establishing a procedure for reconsidering editorial decisions
  • Describing, implementing, and regularly reviewing policies for handling ethical issues and allegations or findings of misconduct by authors and anyone involved in the peer review process
  • Informing authors of solicited manuscripts that the submission will be evaluated according to the journal’s standard procedures or outlining the decision-making process if it differs from those procedures
  • Clearly communicating all other editorial policies and standards


  • Assigning papers for review appropriate to each reviewer’s area of interest and expertise
  • Establishing a process for reviewers to ensure that they treat the manuscript as a confidential document and complete the review promptly
  • Informing reviewers that they are not allowed to make any use of the work described in the manuscript or to take advantage of the knowledge they gained by reviewing it before publication
  • Providing reviewers with written, explicit instructions on the journal’s expectations for the scope, content, quality, and timeliness of their reviews to promote thoughtful, fair, constructive, and informative critique of the submitted work
  • Requesting that reviewers identify any potential conflicts of interest and asking that they recuse themselves if they cannot provide an unbiased review
  • Allowing reviewers appropriate time to complete their reviews
  • Requesting reviews at a reasonable frequency that does not overtax any one reviewer
  • Finding ways to recognize the contributions of reviewers, for example, by publicly thanking them in the journal; providing letters that might be used in applications for academic promotion; offering professional education credits; or inviting them to serve on the editorial board of the journal


  • Evaluating all manuscripts considered for publication to make certain that each provides the evidence readers need to evaluate the authors’ conclusions and that authors’ conclusions reflect the evidence provided in the manuscript
  • Providing literature references and author contact information so interested readers may pursue further discourse
  • Identifying individual and group authorship clearly and developing processes to ensure that authorship criteria are met to the best of the editor’s knowledge
  • Requiring all authors to review and accept responsibility for the content of the final draft of each paper or for those areas to which they have contributed
  • Maintaining the journal’s internal integrity (e.g., correcting errors; clearly identifying and differentiating types of content, such as reports of original data, opinion pieces [e.g., editorials and letters to the editor], corrections/errata, retractions, supplemental data, and promotional material or advertising; and identifying published material with proper references)
  • Ensuring that all involved in the publication process understand that it is inappropriate to manipulate citations by, for example, demanding that authors cite papers in the journal
  • Disclosing sources (e.g., authorship, journal ownership, and funding)
  • Creating mechanisms to determine if the journal is providing what readers need and want (e.g., reader surveys
  • Providing a mechanism for a further discussion on the scientific merits of a paper, such as by publishing letters to the editor, inviting commentaries, article blogs, or soliciting other forms of public discourse
  • Working with the publisher to attract the best manuscripts and research that will be of interest to readers


Reporting standards: 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.

Originality and Plagiarism: The authors should ensure that they have written entirely original works, and if the authors have used the work and/or words of others that this has been appropriately cited or quoted.

Multiple, Redundant or Concurrent Publication: An author should not, in general, publish manuscripts describing essentially the same research in more than one journal or primary publication. Submitting the same manuscript to more than one journal concurrently constitutes unethical publishing behavior and is

Acknowledgment 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. 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.

Disclosure and Conflicts of Interest: All authors should disclose in their manuscript any financial or other substantive conflicts 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.

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.


Once a manuscript is submitted, it is assigned to an Editor most appropriate to handle it, based on the subject of the manuscript and the availability of the Editors. If the Editor determines that the manuscript is not of sufficient quality to go through the normal review process or if the subject of the manuscript is not appropriate to the journal scope, the Editor rejects the manuscript with no further processing.

If the Editor determines that the submitted manuscript is of sufficient quality and falls within the scope of the journal, he/she assigns the manuscript to a minimum of 2 and a maximum of 5 external reviewers for peer-review. The reviewers submit their reports on the manuscripts along with their recommendation of one of the following actions to the Editor:

  • Accept submission (Publish Unaltered)
  • Revisions required (Consider after Minor Changes)
  • Resubmit for review (Consider after Major Changes)
  • Decline submission (Reject: Manuscript is flawed or not sufficiently novel)

When all reviewers have submitted their reports, the Editor can make one of the following decisions: Publish Unaltered, Consider after Minor Changes, Consider after Major Changes, Reject. This decision is usually made within 30 days from the submission date.

If the Editor recommends “Publish Unaltered”; the manuscript is accepted for publication. The manuscript is then assigned a DOI number.

If the Editor recommends “Consider after Minor Changes”, the authors are notified to prepare and submit a final copy of their manuscript with the required minor changes suggested by the reviewers. The Editor reviews the revised manuscript after the minor changes have been made by the authors. Once the Editor is
satisfied with the final manuscript, the manuscript can be accepted. The revised manuscript has to be submitted within two weeks. 

If the Editor recommends “Consider after Major Changes”, the recommendation is communicated to the authors. The authors are expected to revise their manuscripts in accordance with the changes recommended by the reviewers and to submit their revised manuscript within three months. Submission later than that will be regarded as a new submission that will go through the complete review process from the beginning. If you think you are unable to meet the deadline, please notify the Editorial Office.

If the Editor recommends rejecting the manuscript, the rejection is immediate. Also, if two of the reviewers recommend rejecting the manuscript, the rejection is immediate. The editorial workflow gives the Editors the authority in rejecting any manuscript because of the inappropriateness of its subject, lack of quality, or
incorrectness of its results. The Editor cannot assign himself/herself as an external reviewer of the manuscript.

The peer-review process is double-blinded, i.e., the reviewers do not know who the authors of the manuscript are and the authors do not have access to the information of who the peer-reviewers are.


Any selected referee who feels unqualified to review the research reported in a manuscript or knows that its prompt review will be impossible should notify the editors and excuse himself/herself from the review process. The paper will be immediately sent to another qualified reviewer.

Any manuscript received for review must be treated as confidential document. It must not be shown to or discussed with others except as authorized by the editors.

Peer-reviews should be conducted objectively. Personal criticism of the author is inappropriate. Reviewers should express their views clearly with supporting arguments.

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. Reviewers should also call to the editors’ attention any substantial similarity or overlap
between the manuscript under consideration and any other published paper of which they have personal knowledge.

Disclosure and Conflict of Interest

Unpublished materials disclosed in a submitted manuscript must not be used in a reviewer’s own research without the express written consent of the author. 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.

Scroll to Top