About the Journal
In November 1988, the PUCRS Journal of Medicine was launched, with the aim of disseminating the scientific production of the Pontifical Catholic University of Rio Grande do Sul. In 2004, the "Scientia Medica Project" brought in its context the new name of the journal Scientia Medica. Its main objective was to stimulate the scientific production of professors, professionals, graduate and undergraduate medical students, research institutes and health courses, both at the University and in other regions of the country. From this, the magazine opened its borders and began to accept articles from multiple institutions.
In 2006, Scientia Medica had a new editorial board. That same year, the Electronic Magazine Publishing System (SEER) was implemented, which made the editorial process easier and more practical. Both print and electronic formats always contained the same scientific content.
Between 2006 and 2015 the publication showed considerable development, increasing the geographic reach of its collaborators, achieving internationalization and obtaining several important indexes. In 2015, it closed the print edition, whose ISSN was 1806-5562, and was only published electronically.
Contribute to the dissemination of scientific knowledge in the various areas of medicine and other health sciences, with an interdisciplinary approach and with regional, national and international coverage.
This journal employs the peer review system to process manuscripts submitted for publication. All submitted articles undergo an initial review by the editors to verify that the subject is within the journal's focus and scope and that the journal's standards and the minimum quality standards required are met. Still in this initial phase, the original is inserted in a software that specializes in plagiarism identification, to verify possible excessive similarities with texts already published. If the basic requirements for publication in Scientia Medica are not met, the submission may be rejected shortly after these steps and the authors will be informed of the reasons. If the basic requirements are met, the manuscript is sent to at least two external reviewers, experts in the corresponding field, who evaluate the article by adding comments, suggesting changes and giving an opinion on its acceptance for publication. If the reviews are discordant, a third or more reviewers will be assigned. Documents may be statistically revised as necessary. Scientia Medica uses double-blind peer review, where authors and reviewers are blind to each other.
Reviewers guidelines are automatically provided by the publishing operating system when the invited reviewer is available for review. These include topics such as confidentiality, conflicts of interest and guidance on the practical aspects of the review. Statements about the ethical principles that Scientia Medica follows in relation to the peer review process are included in the "Principles of Ethics and Best Practices in Academic Publishing" section below.
After receiving the reviews, the editor makes the decision to accept, decline, or request a review of the article by the authors. When necessary, the Editorial Board is consulted. Suggested changes are forwarded to the authors for their response and review of the article. The revised original received from the authors is then reviewed by the editor or the same reviewers to ensure that the requirements have been met. From submission to editorial decision, the entire process can be tracked electronically by the author, referring to the site using the username and password that are provided when registering.
The final editorial decision takes into consideration the following criteria: compliance with the journal's rules, originality, relevance and scientific contribution to the theme. This decision is independent of commercial interest or any other competing interest. The final editorial decision and the reasons for it are always communicated to the authors.
Scientia Medica does not rule out studies with results that are not statistically significant or inconclusive. According to the ICMJE recommendations, such studies may provide evidence that, combined with other studies, may help answer important questions, or otherwise be valuable to other researchers who consider doing similar work.
Continuous flow of publication.
This journal provides open access to all its content, following the principle that free access to scientific research generates a greater global exchange of knowledge.
Scientia Medica is a member of the Committee on Publication Ethics (Cope) and follows its principles of ethics, transparency and integrity in publishing
It follows the recommendations of the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) for conducting, reporting, editing and publishing academic papers in medical journals.
Scientia Medica is a member of the Open Access Scholarly Publishers Association (OASPA), which represents organizations dedicated to maintaining best practices in open access scientific publishing.
Authorship is based on the following four criteria:
- 1. substantial contributions to the conception or design of the work; or acquisition, analysis or interpretation of data for the paper;
- 2. elaborate the paper or critically revise it in its intellectual content;
- 3. final approval of the version to be published;
- 4. agreement to account for aspects of the work, ensuring that issues related to the accuracy and completeness of any part of the work are properly investigated and resolved.
All authors designated as authors must meet all four authorship criteria, and all who meet all four criteria must be identified as authors.
Employees who do not meet the four criteria should be mentioned in the acknowledgments.
By submitting the manuscript, the authors ensure that the work has not been previously published or is being reviewed by another journal.
Literal copies of excerpts already published are not acceptable except in exceptional cases in the form of quotation.
When it is necessary to copy another author's words, use citation rules.
Before or after publication, authors and reviewers should notify the editor if any errors are identified in the article.
The publisher and publishers are willing to post corrections, clarifications, retractions and apologies when necessary. Authors should cooperate with editors in corrections or retractions.
Scientia Medica follows Cope's guidelines for retracting or correcting articles. Reasonable steps are taken to identify and prevent the publication of articles that have been misleading or have been found to display misconduct in the research.
The manuscript under review is a privileged document and protected from all forms of exploitation. Editorial staff and external reviewers are instructed not to cite a manuscript before it is published and not to distribute or use the information contained in it to advance their own research.
During the review, the manuscript should not be shown or discussed with others, and no one else should be involved in the review, except in special cases for persons who may be asked for specific advice. In this case, the reviewer is responsible for ensuring confidentiality. The reviewer should inform the editor about others who have made significant contributions to a review.
Conflicting interests may be personal, financial, intellectual, professional, political or religious, and may occur with authors, reviewers and editors.
- Authors: Scientia Medica requires that all authors declare any relevant financial and non-financial conflicts of interest and publish at least those that may influence the reader's perception of an article. Perceptions of conflicts of interest are as important as actual conflicts of interest. Whenever there is a relationship between authors and any public or private organization, which may lead to a conflict of interest, this possibility is communicated and included in the article. In case there are no conflicts, this is mentioned
- Reviewers: In the peer review system used by Scientia Medica, the manuscript is sent to the reviewer without the authors' identification. However, if the reviewer recognizes the authors or the institution, there may be a conflict of interest. To maintain the impartiality of the peer review process, the reviewer should determine whether the manuscript can be judged impartially. If there is any competing interest, the reviewer must immediately inform the editor so that another reviewer may be appointed. The peer review process used by Scientia Medica and the guidelines for authors are described in detail in the "Peer Review Process" section of the ABOUT, "POLICIES" menu.
- Publishers: Publishers will not be involved in decisions about articles in which they may have a conflict of interest, for example if they work at the same institution or have a personal relationship with the authors. Each submission is handled by an editor without any conflict of interest regarding the manuscript and the authors.
The source of research funding needs to be stated and published and, if applicable, its role in research design, conduct, analysis or reporting will be stated and published.
Editorial decisions are based on the relevance and quality of a manuscript. Decisions are not influenced by business interests, personal relationships or agendas, or other secondary interests.
Scientia Medica has a multi-institutional Editorial Board to help establish and maintain editorial policies, support editorial decisions and manage potentially controversial expressions of opinion.
Original articles and case reports need approval from an institutional Research Ethics Committee. Authors must submit the Ethics Committee approval document. In the article, state in the Methods section that the ethical standards for human experimentation were followed and state the name of the institution and the number of the approval document (in Brazil, the Con-substantiated Opinion).
Published material must follow all ethical standards of the 1964 Helsinki Declaration and subsequent amendments. Research conducted in Brazil must meet the requirements of National Health Council Resolution 466/2012.
If relevant, informed consent must have been obtained from all adult participants and / or parents or legal guardians of children or disabled adults, and a consent form obtained from adolescents and children. The confidentiality of the patient's identity is always preserved.
In the case of an experimental animal study, the maintenance and care of animals obey the guidelines of the authority or agency of the country or institution for the human use of animals in research.
Publishers are aware of concerns about the ethical conduct of research. They may seek advice from members of the Editorial Board with specific competence in this area, and may require further assurance or evidence from authors or their institutions. Articles may be rejected for ethical reasons, even if the research is approved by an ethics committee.
- BVS - Biblioteca Virtual em Saúde
- DIALNET – Universidad de La Rioja, Espanha
- DOAJ – Directory of Open Access Journals
- Google Scholar
- InfoBase Index
- LILACS – Literatura Latinoamericana en Ciencias de la Salud
- LATINDEX – Sistema Regional de Información en Línea para Revistas Científicas de América Latina, el Caribe, España y Portugal
- LiVre - CNEN - Periódicos de Livre Acesso
- Periódicos CAPES
- REDIB - Red Iberoamericana de Innovación y Conocimiento Científico
- ROAD - Directory of Open Acess Journals
- SCImago - SCImago Journal Rank
- SCOPUS – Bases de dados da empresa editorial Elsevier
- Sumários - Sumários de Revistas Brasileiras
- Web Of Science
Listing and legal deposit data
Cataloging form prepared by the Information Processing Sector of the PUCRS Central Library.
Article Submission Fees and Article Processing Fees (APCs) Policy
This journal does not charge fees for publication.
Thematic coverage coded according to CNPq classification, identifying first and second levels
- Main Area: Medicine
- Qualis: B3 / B4
- Period: 2013-2016