Papers must be submitted in English. Papers are accepted on the understanding that they may be subject to editorial revision. All Original Articles are subject to review and authors are urged to be brief.

Submit your article online

All manuscripts (text, tables and figures) must be submitted electronically through the Medicina Historica online submission and review website (www.medicinahistorica.it)

Submission checklist

The following list will be useful during the final checking of an article prior to sending it to the journal for review.

Ensure that the following items are present:

One Author designated as corresponding Author:

• E-mail address
• Full postal address
• Telephone and fax numbers

All necessary files have been uploaded

• Keywords
• All figure captions
• All tables (including title, description, footnotes)

Further considerations

• Manuscript has been "spellchecked" and "grammar-checked"
• References are in the correct format for this journal (see the references style in guideline authors)
• All references mentioned in the Reference list are cited in the text, and vice versa
• Permission has been obtained for use of copyrighted material from other sources (including the Web)
• Color figures are clearly marked as being intended for color reproduction on the Web and in print or to be reproduced in color on the Web and in black-and-white in print

 If only color on the Web is required, black and white versions of the figures are also supplied for printing purposes

 

MANUSCRIPT ORGANIZATION

Type of manuscript

The Journal accepts 5 types of manuscripts: (1) Original article, (2) review article, (3) case report, (4) short report, (5) letter to Editor. Requirements for each type of article are described in detail below.

 

Title page must contain: a concise informative title; author(s) names; department or institution where work was done; name and address of author to whom correspondence about the manuscript and request for reprints should be referred, as well as fax, E-mail and telephone number; a running title of no more than 40 characters. Be certain to list the FAX number and E-mail of the corresponding author on the title page. All correspondence will be by E-mail and web site only. Each author’s affiliation must reflect that at the time of the research submitted to Medicina Historica. Author information cannot be changed/added after the manuscript submission. Additional page(s) should include the authors’ disclosure (see format) and contribution statements (see format) as well as any required supplemental material.

• Original article (History of Medicine/Paleopathology/Bioethics/Cultural Anthropology)

A manuscript that provides new information based on original research in the fields of History of Medicine, Paleopathology, Bioethics and Cultural Anthropology (Medical Anthropology). All manuscripts should be organized as follows: title page, blinded manuscript, supplementary material, tables and figures. The manuscript organized as follows: highlights, abstract, introduction, Materials and Methods, Results, Discussion, Conclusion, Acknowledgments and references.  This paper is limited to 6000 words including references with a total of ten figures and/or tables.

• Highlights are three to five, bullet points that help increase the visibility of your research via search engines. These bullet points could valorize the novel results of your research.
• Abstract is limited to 250 words and it must include the objectives of the research presented in the article;
• Keywords Immediately after the abstract, list up to 10 keywords, using American spelling and avoiding general and plural terms and multiple concepts (avoid, for example, 'and', 'of'). Be sparing with abbreviations: only abbreviations firmly established in the field may be eligible. These keywords will be used for indexing purposes.
• Introduction should briefly state the nature and purpose of the study, citing the relevant literature, and highlighting its importance and relevance. The final paragraph of the Introduction must specifically indicate the focus of the research. This section should not exceed 1000 words.
• Materials and Methods should include all details materials methods stated in the studies. This section should not exceed 500 words.
• Results should be described clearly, concisely and without comment. This section should not exceed 1000 words.
• Discussion should discuss your results and relate them to those of other authors and define their significance in the research. This section should not exceed 2000 words.
• Conclusions should be described the final considerations of the research. This section should not exceed 500 words.
• Acknowledgments are for individuals who have not made sufficiently substantial contributions to the manuscript to be considered authors, but who have assisted in the conception, design, editing, etc. Comments on grants or funding for the study can also be included. This section mus be included in supplemental material and not in Manuscript file.
• References should be formatted as noted in the General Format Guidelines above. References are listed in the order referenced in the text.
• Tables should be presented but not duplicate the date presented in the results.
• Figures and legends provide to give descriptions about the figures and should be included at the end of the manuscript document and not uploaded as a separate document of as supplemental material. Figures for manuscripts should be uploaded as individual figure parts.

 

• Review Article (History of Medicine/Paleopathology/Bioethics/Cultural Anthropology)
• : A review article is a scientific discussion of the literature into a coherent topic. It is especially appropriate when a field of study has undergone changes that have not yet made their way into standard textbooks. Because of the nature of a review article, the structured format of a scientific manuscript is not required. The Abstract is limited to 250 words and keywords no more than five. This paper must be no more than 5000 words inclusive of references.
• Case Report: manuscript with the following limitations: The blinded manuscript should be organized as follows: blinded title page, Abstract, Introduction, Case Report, Discussion, Acknowledgments, References, Tables, Figure Legends, and Figures. The Abstract is limited to 250 words, but is otherwise not structured. It should indicate a brief summary of the reported case specifics, and a brief explanation of why it merits publication. The Introduction should indicate why the case is being presented and its relevance. The Discussion should focus on those aspects of the case that are necessary to convey the message that the author(s) wish to make. Extraneous information is discouraged. The Figures should be placed after the Figure Legends. Each figure part should be formatted as specified for a Review Article. When multiple cases are included, images for each case should be presented together in a single figure. The format for a case report should follow that for a scientific manuscript. This paper must be no more than 3000 words inclusive of references with a total of five figures and/or tables permitted.
• Short report (History of Medicine/Paleopathology/Bioethics/Cultural Anthropology)
• consists of significant information of a particular topic that is meant to inform a reader. Because of the nature of a review article, the structured format of a scientific manuscript is not required. The Abstract is limited to 250. This paper must be no more than 3000 words inclusive of references with a total of five figures and/or tables permitted.
• Letters to the Editor (History of Medicine/Paleopathology/Bioethics/Cultural Anthropology): Letters to the Editor may offer pertinent comment or constructive criticism of articles published in Medicina Historica. The timeliness of such letters is important and they must be received no later than three months following the on-line publication of a manuscript. They should directly relate to material within the article. Letters that do not directly deal with the published material and only shares the authors’ experience with a similar subject matter are evaluated for publication. Such letters are published at the discretion of the Editor and are subject to editing for content and style. Once accepted, they will be sent the author(s) for response. The letters should not exceed 600 words of text, one figure or table and up to six references. No letter will exceed 500 words or have more than 6 references. Images, tables, graphs, etc., will not be accepted except under unusual circumstances.

Formatting: 12-point type in one of the standard fonts (Times, Helvetica Courier) is preferred. It is necessary to double-line space your text.

Figures and tables: figures and tables must be titled and numbered, in the order of their citation in the text. Legends are required whenever needed.
The figures can be embedded in the manuscript and should be placed at the end, after the tables, along with their legends. If Figures are prepared in jpeg or tiff (or high resolution pdf) format, they should be loaded separately as supplementary files. Photographs, drawings, graphs, diagrams must have a minimum size of 10x15 cm. A minimum resolution of 300 dpi is required.

References:

The references should be numbered consecutively in the order in which they appear in the text. References cited only in tables or in legends to figures should be numbered in accordance with the sequence established by the first identification in the text. Reference citations in the text should be identified by numbers in square brackets (e.g.: [3] or [1-3, 7]). Only numerals should be cited in the text. The list of references should be typed in numerical order and indicate: authors’ names (all authors); article title, name of the Journal (abbreviated as in Index Medicus), publication year, volume and first and last page numbers.

Examples:

Article:

Poulin JF, Arbour D, Laforest S, Drolet G. Neuroanatomical characterization of endogenous opioids in the bed nucleus of the stria terminalis. Prog Neuropsychopharmacol Biol Psychiatry 2009; 33:1356 –65.

Book:

Hsieh J. Computed tomography. Principles, design, artifact, and recent advantages. Bellingham: SPIE Press; 2009.

Chapter in a book:

Meltzer PS, Kallioniemi A, Trent JM. Chromosome alterations in human solid tumors. In: Vogelstein B, Kinzler KW, editors. The genetic basis of human cancer. New York: McGraw-Hill; 2002. p. 93-113.

Conference proceedings:

Harnden P, Joffe JK, Jones WG, editors. Germ cell tumours V. Proceedings of the 5th Germ Cell Tumour Conference; 2001 Sep 13-15; Leeds, UK. New York: Springer; 2002.

Conference paper:

Christensen S, Oppacher F. An analysis of Koza's computational effort statistic for genetic programming. In: Foster JA, Lutton E, Miller J, Ryan C, Tettamanzi AG, editors.

Dissertation:

Borkowski MM. Infant sleep and feeding: a telephone survey of Hispanic Americans [dissertation]. Mount Pleasant (MI): Central Michigan University; 2002.

Newspaper article:

Tynan T. Medical improvements lower homicide rate: study sees drop in assault rate. The Washington Post. 2002 Aug 12;Sect. A:2 (col. 4).

Dictionary and similar references:

Dorland's illustrated medical dictionary. 29th ed. Philadelphia: W.B. Saunders; 2000. Filamin; p. 675.

Copyright:

Please include a signed release of copyright to the Medicina Historica with your text. Include the title of the article being submitted, as well as the date.

The corresponding author must certify that the submitted manuscript is an original article and that he is able to prove this originality if required from the Referees. Without this declaration the manuscript will not be considered (see the format).

 

PEER REVIEW POLICY

All submissions will be evaluated by two independent experts in the field. Reviewers will be asked to assess the validity, significance and originality of submitted research and ensure that the research complies with relevant best practice guidelines. The editorial and publication process followed the guidelines of the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE).

If after a period of time one of the two reviewers who accepted the position appears unable to submit a report, the Editor-in-Chief may decide to have the Associate Editor provide his/her opinion on the article.

Medicina Historica uses a double-blind peer review system. Neither the author nor the reviewers know the other's information.

The selection of two independent reviewers is based on the following criteria: they should preferably be from other countries, should not have co-authored a publication with the author within the past three years, and should not be affiliated with the same institution(s) to which the author is connected.

The deadline for the review is two weeks.

The Editor-in-Chief is responsible for selecting reviewers. Reviewers should be competent in the field of study of the manuscript and not from the same institution as the authors; in addition, reviewers should not be authors who have (recently) published as co-authors with one of the authors of the relevant manuscript.

The verification procedure is as follows. The Editor-in-Chief sends submitted manuscripts to reviewers who are experts in their respective subject matter.

Reviewers work independently. Their identities remain hidden from each other. In the event of a different decision (accept/reject), the Editor-in-Chief has access to different expert opinions.

During this process, the Editor-in-Chief may request additional information (including key facts) if it is critical to assessing the scientific contribution of the manuscript.

 

Reviewers' Conflicts of Interest and Responsabilities

• Deadline Extensions: Invited reviewers may request an extension if more time is needed to provide a thorough review. This request should be made as soon as possible.
• Qualification Notification: Reviewers who feel they are not sufficiently qualified for the topic or area of the research should notify the Editor-in-Chief promptly.
• Statistical Methods: Reviewers are expected to evaluate the statistical methods used in the manuscript. If necessary, the manuscript may be sent for a specialist statistical review.
• Objective Reviews: Reviews should be conducted objectively, with reviewers clearly expressing their views and providing supporting arguments. Reviewers should assess the quality of the manuscript and make a recommendation to the Editor-in-Chief on whether the manuscript should be accepted, requires revisions, or should be rejected.
• Citation Identification: Reviewers should identify relevant published work that has not been cited by the authors. Any substantial similarity or overlap between the manuscript under consideration and any other published paper of which the reviewer has personal knowledge should be brought to the editor's attention.
• Confidentiality: Reviewers must keep the content of the manuscript, including the abstract, confidential until the article is published.
• Additional Comments: Reviewers may provide separate comments to the Editor-in-Chief on the scientific content of the manuscript, including areas of weakness, methodological inaccuracies, the relevance of the review topic, and an overall rating of the manuscript.
• Peer Review Reports: Review reports are sent to the authors along with the editorial decision on their manuscript.

The identity of reviewers remains anonymous. If there are conflicting evaluations from reviewers (one positive, one negative), the Editor-in-Chief may invite an additional reviewer to provide an extra opinion before making a final decision.

 

Decision after review

Editors will consider the peer-reviewed reports when making a decision. Reviewed articles will typically require acceptance from at least two reviewers to be approved for publication.

After evaluating the reviewer reports, the editor will make one of the following decisions:

• Accepted: The manuscript is accepted for publication as it is.
• Request for Minor Revision: Authors are asked to make minor revisions to address specific concerns.
• Request for Major Revision: Authors are required to make substantial revisions to address significant concerns and may need to undertake additional work.
• Rejected: The manuscript is not accepted for publication.

 

Revision/Correction

The Editor-in-Chief sends the decision by email to the corresponding author, including any relevant reviewer comments. If revisions are requested, the authors will be invited to prepare a revised manuscript. The decision email will specify a deadline for submitting the revised article. Once resubmitted, the article may be sent back to the original reviewers by the Editor-in-Chief.

Revised articles should be submitted via the revision link provided in the decision letter, not as a new submission. The revision should include a point-by-point response to the reviewers, detailing how the article has been revised in response to their comments.

 

Final Submission and Acceptance

When all editorial issues are resolved, the paper is formally accepted for publication. The Editors will notify the authors of the acceptance decision.

Before final publication, the corresponding author will be invited by the Publisher to make a final check of the manuscript. Only minor changes or corrections of scientific errors are permitted. All corrections must be approved by the publishing team.

Changes to authorship, including adding or deleting authors, changing the Corresponding Author, or altering the sequence of authors, are not accepted during or after the acceptance of the manuscript.

 

Statements Related to the Publication Process for Supplements

If a Guest Editor is considering a special issue proposal, they must present it to the Editor-in-Chief for approval. Once approved, the Guest Editor is responsible for identifying suitable papers and authors for inclusion in the special issue, ensuring that all submissions adhere to the same strict ethical principles and rigorous review process as regular journal issues.

The Guest Editor should be an expert in the field and is responsible for the content of the supplement. If the Editor-in-Chief detects poor adherence to Medicina Historica guidelines or unethical practices, the supplement will be canceled. The principles of authorship and disclosure of potential conflicts of interest apply to supplements as they do to regular journal issues.

 

Proofs

One set of page proofs (as PDF files) will be sent by e-mail to the corresponding author (if we do not have an e-mail address then paper proofs will be sent by post) or, a link will be provided in the e-mail so that authors can download the files themselves. The authors can be correct the pdf proof, for this you will need to download Adobe Reader version 7 (or higher) available free from

http://www.adobe.com/products/acrobat/readstep2.html. Instructions on how to annotate PDF files will accompany the proofs (also given online).

 

Publication Ethics Policies

Medicina Historica ensures the integrity and transparency of each published article, and ensures that all submissions receive equal treatment by following rigorous ethical guidelines. Medicina Historica does not tolerate discrimination or bias based on, but not limited to, sex or gender, disability, age, nationality, race, sexual orientation, belief system, political, or economic status.

The editorial and publication process follow the guidelines of the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE), World Association of Medical Editors (WAME), Council of Science Editors (CSE), and COPE International Standards for Editors and Authors Guidelines (http://publicationethics.org).

 

Article Submission

The Corresponding Author is required to submit the manuscript through the online platform. The paper must be written in grammatically correct English and properly formatted. Submissions are accepted on the condition that they are exclusive to Medicina Historica and have not been, nor will be, published elsewhere.

Every author must be familiar with the journal’s editorial and publishing policies and is responsible for ensuring the manuscript is an accurate and verifiable representation of the research.

The lead author holds responsibility for the integrity of the entire work. The Editor-in-Chief (EIC) evaluates whether the paper is suitable for the journal and if it presents original and engaging content. If these criteria are not met, the submission may be declined without further review.

Manuscripts submitted by members of the Editorial Board will be processed with complete transparency and integrity, adhering to the guidelines set by the Council of Science Editors (CSE - https://www.councilscienceeditors.org/resource-library/editorial-policies/publication-ethics/2-1-editor-roles-and-responsibilities), the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE - http://www.icmje.org/recommendations/browse/roles-and-responsibilities/author-responsibilities--conflicts-of-interest.html), and the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE - https://publicationethics.org/files/A_Short_Guide_to_Ethical_Editing.pdf).

Two independent reviewers will be chosen based on specific criteria: they should preferably be from different countries, must not have co-authored any publications with the author(s) in the past three years, and should not be affiliated with the same institution as the author(s).

 

POLICIES ON CONFLICT OF INTEREST, HUMAN RIGHTS, AND INFORMED CONSENT

Human and animal rights

All research must have been carried out within an appropriate ethical framework. If there is suspicion that work has not taken place within an appropriate ethical framework, Editors will follow the Misconduct policy and may reject the manuscript, and/or contact the author(s)’ institution or ethics committee. On rare occasions, if the Editor has serious concerns about the ethics of a study, the manuscript may be rejected on ethical grounds, even if approval from an ethics committee has been obtained.

Research involving human subjects, human material, or human data, must have been performed in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki and must have been approved by an appropriate ethics committee. A statement detailing this, including the name of the ethics committee and the reference number where appropriate, must appear in all manuscripts reporting such research. If a study has been granted an exemption from requiring ethics approval, this should also be detailed in the manuscript (including the name of the ethics committee that granted the exemption). Further information and documentation to support this should be made available to Editors on request. Manuscripts may be rejected if the Editor considers that the research has not been carried out within an appropriate ethical framework. In rare cases, Editors may contact the ethics committee for further information.

If a study has not been submitted to an ethics committee prior to commencing, retrospective ethics approval usually cannot be obtained and it may not be possible to consider the manuscript for peer review. How to proceed in such cases is at the Editor(s)’ discretion.

Authors reporting the use of a new procedure or tool in a clinical setting, for example as a technical advance or case report, must give a clear justification in the manuscript for why the new procedure or tool was deemed more appropriate than usual clinical practice to meet the patient’s clinical need. Such justification is not required if the new procedure is already approved for clinical use at the authors’ institution. Authors will be expected to have obtained ethics committee approval and informed patient consent for any experimental use of a novel procedure or tool where a clear clinical advantage based on clinical need was not apparent before treatment.

 

Informed consent policy

For all research involving human subjects, informed consent to participate in the study should be obtained from participants (or their parent or guardian in the case of children under 16) and a statement to this effect should appear in the manuscript.

 

For all manuscripts that include details, images, or videos relating to individual participants, written informed consent for the publication of these must be obtained from the participants (or their parent or legal guardian in the case of children under 16) and a statement to this effect should appear in the manuscript. If the participant has died, then consent for publication must be sought from the next of kin of the participant. This documentation must be made available to Editors on request, 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.

Experimental research on vertebrates or any regulated invertebrates must comply with institutional, national, or international guidelines, and where available should have been approved by an appropriate ethics committee. The Basel Declaration outlines fundamental principles to adhere to when conducting research in animals and the International Council for Laboratory Animal Science (ICLAS) has also published ethical guidelines.

A statement detailing compliance with relevant guidelines (e.g. the revised Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 in the UK and Directive 2010/63/EU in Europe) and/or ethical approval (including the name of the ethics committee and the reference number where appropriate) must be included in the manuscript. If a study has been granted an exemption from requiring ethics approval, this should also be detailed in the manuscript (including the name of the ethics committee that granted the exemption and the reasons for the exemption). The Editor will take account of animal welfare issues and reserves the right to reject a manuscript, especially if the research involves protocols that are inconsistent with commonly accepted norms of animal research. In rare cases, Editors may contact the ethics committee for further information.

For experimental studies involving client-owned animals, authors must also document informed consent from the client or owner and adherence to a high standard (best practice) of veterinary care.

Field studies and other non-experimental research on animals must comply with institutional, national, or international guidelines, and where available should have been approved by an appropriate ethics committee. A statement detailing compliance with relevant guidelines and/or appropriate permissions or licences must be included in the manuscript. We recommend that authors comply with the Convention on the Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora and the IUCN Policy Statement on Research Involving Species at Risk of Extinction.

Authors are strongly encouraged to conform to the Animal Research: Reporting In Vivo Experiments (ARRIVE) guidelines, developed by the National Centre for the Replacement, Refinement and Reduction of Animals in Research (NC3Rs), for reporting animal studies.

For studies reporting livestock trials with production, health and food-safety outcomes, authors are encouraged to adhere to the Reporting Guidelines for Randomized Controlled Trials in Livestock and Food Safety (REFLECT).

 

ICMJE best practice standards

Mattioli 1885 requires the Authors and Editors of its journals to follow the recommendations by the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) (https://www.icmje.org), which reviews best practice and ethical standards in the conduct and reporting of research and other material published in medical journals. It is Mattioli 1885’ conviction that following these recommendations supports the accurate, clear, reproducible, and unbiased creation and distribution of scientific journal articles. Please download or review these recommendations (https://www.icmje.org/recommendations/).

 

Conflicts of interests

The corresponding author is required to reveal any financial or other (financial, consultant, institutional, personal, ideology, academic and other relationships) conflict of interest that may influence their results or interpretations.

In the case of existence of any such financial connections, the authors concerned must declare them in a brief but complete definition in the “Title page” file.

Competing interests may be financial or non-financial. A competing interest exists when the authors’ interpretation of data or presentation of information may be influenced by their personal or financial relationship with other people or organizations. Authors should disclose any financial competing interests but also any non-financial competing interests that may cause them embarrassment if they were to become public after the publication of the article.

Financial competing interests include (but are not limited to):

– Receiving reimbursements, fees, funding, or salary from an organization that may in any way gain or lose financially from the publication of the article, either now or in the future.

– Holding stocks or shares in an organization that may in any way gain or lose financially from the publication of the article, either now or in the future.

– Holding, or currently applying for, patents relating to the content of the manuscript.

– Receiving reimbursements, fees, funding, or salary from an organization that holds or has applied for patents relating to the content of the manuscript.

– Non-financial competing interests

– Non-financial competing interests include (but are not limited to) political, personal, religious, ideological, academic, and intellectual competing interests. If, after reading these guidelines, you are unsure whether you have a competing interest, please contact the Editor.

Authors from pharmaceutical companies, or other commercial organizations that sponsor clinical trials, should declare these as competing interests on submission. They should also adhere to the Good Publication Practice guidelines for pharmaceutical companies, which are designed to ensure that publications are produced in a responsible and ethical manner. The guidelines also apply to any companies or individuals that work on industry-sponsored publications, such as freelance writers, contract research organizations and communications companies.

 

Mistakes in already published works

Should the authors discover some important mistake in their work after it has been published, he/she is required to inform the editor in chief and the publisher immediately and to cooperate with them in order to prepare a Corrige for the next number to address the necessary corrections.

 

Corresponding authors

The corresponding author assumes primary responsibility for communication with the journal and editorial office throughout the submission process, peer review, and publication stages. Additionally, the corresponding author should be available after publication to address any questions or critiques that may arise.

 

Acknowledgements

The acknowledgements section is intended for expressing gratitude to individuals who contributed significantly to the work but do not meet the criteria for authorship. This section can also be used to disclose relevant funding sources.

 

Unethical practices (Plagiarism, Misconduct, Falsification, Duplicate Publication, Redundant Publication)

We should warn the authors that every manuscript is checked for plagiarism.

If there is clear indication of plagiarism in the manuscript, it will be rejected immediately and the author will not be allowed to publish in the journal.

Although the editors and reviewers make every effort to ensure the validity of published manuscripts, the final responsibility rests with the authors, not with the Journal, its Editors, or Publisher.

If minor offence, the situations will be resolved in direct communication with the persons who committed the breach without involving a third party e.g. by informing the author/reviewer that an offence has taken place as a result of misunderstanding or misapplication of academic standards; or by sending a letter of warning to the author/reviewer who committed

If major violations of ethical standards, the decisions regarding major violations of ethical standards are made by the editor in chief in collaboration with the editorial board and, if necessary, with a small group of experts. The following actions may be taken either against individuals or groups:

• Publishing an announcement or editorial in which the case of violation is described;
• Sending an official statement to the supervisor/employer of the author/reviewer;
• Retracting of the work already published;
• The authors will be not allowed to submit their work to the journal for a period of time;

In resolving conflicting situations the editorial board of the journal is following the guidelines

and recommendations of the Committee on Publication Ethics – COPE: http://publicationethics.org/resources/.