The Journal of Anhui Medical University employs a rigorous double-blind peer review process to evaluate the scientific accuracy, innovation, clinical relevance, and significance of submitted manuscripts. The specific review procedure is as follows:

1. Editorial Office Initial Review (3-5 working days)
       All submitted manuscripts to the Journal of Anhui Medical University undergo an initial review by the editorial office. The review covers, but is not limited to: compliance with the journal’s scope, plagiarism detection, ethical review, formal requirements check, funding project verification, and preliminary assessment of academic quality. After the initial review, authors will receive one of three outcomes:
① Rejection: Manuscripts that do not meet the journal’s scope, lack clinical or research value, fail ethical review, or contain political issues will be rejected directly;
② Return for revision: Manuscripts with a similarity index exceeding 15%, missing materials, or formatting issues will be returned with specific instructions on required revisions and format adjustments. After making the necessary corrections, authors may resubmit the manuscript for a second round of initial review;
③ Pass initial review: Manuscripts that pass the initial screening will be assigned a manuscript number, receive an official acceptance notice, and proceed to the peer review stage.

2. Peer Review (1-2 months)
      Manuscripts that pass the initial screening will proceed to the core peer review stage. This journal implements a strict double-blind review process, during which all identifiable information—such as author names, affiliations, and grant numbers—is concealed throughout the entire review process. Additionally, reviewers are not informed of each other’s identities, and authors are shielded from reviewers’ identities, ensuring maximum objectivity in evaluation.

(1) Selection Criteria for Reviewers: Based on the specific research area of each manuscript, the editorial office matches suitable reviewers from the journal’s expert database. Each manuscript is sent to at least two independent external reviewers. For studies involving statistical methods, an additional reviewer specialized in statistics is appointed. The selection process strictly enforces conflict-of-interest checks: if a reviewer shares the same institution, has collaborated with the author, or has a familial or academic relationship with the author, they will be automatically excluded from reviewing the manuscript. Invited reviewers who identify potential conflicts of interest, whose research expertise does not align with the manuscript topic, or who cannot complete the review within the specified timeframe must promptly notify the editorial office and may recommend a suitable replacement to ensure timely progress.

(2) Core Evaluation Criteria: Reviewers are expected to assess the manuscript’s originality, scientific rigor, practical relevance, methodological soundness, and readability. They should provide constructive feedback and suggestions regarding research design, technical or experimental methods, data analysis, title clarity, presentation of results, support for conclusions, and reference literature.

(3) Handling of Review Comments and Disagreements: Reviewers must submit their formal evaluation reports via the journal’s dedicated review system or email within 30 days, providing clear decisions categorized into four outcomes: direct acceptance, acceptance after revision, re-review after revision, or rejection. If significant discrepancies exist among external reviewers’ assessments, the editorial office will appoint additional reviewers for supplementary evaluations. Final decisions will be made based on a comprehensive synthesis of multiple reviews, minimizing the risk of subjective bias from any single reviewer affecting the outcome.

3. Re-review and Final Review (1-2 months)
      After the external review process, the editorial office will compile the reviewers' comments and provide them to the author. The author must respond to each comment individually and submit a revised version of the manuscript within the specified timeframe. In the revised manuscript, all changes should typically be highlighted using different colors or annotations to facilitate re-review. If revisions are limited to textual polishing or formatting adjustments, and upon confirmation by the editor that they meet the required standards, the manuscript may proceed directly to final review. However, if revisions involve significant changes to research design or core data, the manuscript will be returned to the original reviewers for secondary evaluation. The final decision is made by the journal’s chief editor, who conducts a comprehensive assessment beyond merely summarizing external reviews. This includes evaluating the manuscript against the journal's annual publication plan, comparing its quality with other submissions in the same field, and assessing the potential impact of the research within the academic community. Decisions on acceptance, revision, or rejection are based primarily on criteria of "innovation, scientific rigor, and thoroughness." The final outcome will be formally communicated via email to the corresponding author or first author’s designated email address, ensuring transparency and predictability in the review timeline.

4. Acceptance and Publication 
      After passing the final review, manuscripts will proceed to the editing and publication process. Once accepted, the editorial board reserves the right to make technical and textual revisions; any changes affecting the original meaning will require the author's consent, and authors remain solely responsible for the content of their work. The editorial board also has the right to authorize domestic and international literature retrieval systems and databases to index and include published articles.

5. Appeal Process
     If an author has objections to the final review decision, they may submit a formal "Appeal Statement," clearly indicating the manuscript number, providing a detailed explanation of the reasons for appeal, and including relevant academic justifications. The document must be stamped by the research administration office of the author's institution before being sent to the journal's official email address: aydxb@vip.163.com. The editorial office will review the appeal materials and decide whether to accept it based on the circumstances. If the editorial office decides to initiate an additional external review process, it will solicit neutral opinions from third-party experts and then provide feedback on the appeal.

6. Other Matters
(1) Submissions and invited manuscripts from the editorial board members and editors of this journal are subject to the same rigorous peer review process. All relevant personnel must recuse themselves from reviewing or making decisions regarding manuscripts involving themselves or their associates, ensuring full independence throughout the entire process.
(2) The journal regularly organizes professional training sessions for editors and all reviewers to update knowledge on medical research integrity, journal publishing standards, and the latest developments in the field, thereby maintaining consistent and unified review criteria.
(3) After official publication, the journal opens a channel for academic discussion, welcoming readers and authors to submit scholarly comments on published papers (email: aydxb@vip.163.com). The editorial office will promptly address reasonable academic discussions and provide appropriate feedback as needed, jointly fostering a transparent and rigorous academic environment. We also encourage authors to post comments about our articles on third-party forums.