Editorial Policies & Peer Review Process

Editorial Independence & Ethics

Medfolium operates with absolute editorial autonomy, maintaining a strict firewall between our scientific editorial decisions and our technical publishing infrastructure. We strictly adhere to the guidelines set forth by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE). All editorial decisions—whether accepting a guest editorial or approving a partner society’s journal issue for hosting—are based solely on academic merit, clinical validity, and adherence to ethical research standards, free from any commercial or institutional influence.

Editorial Triage & Peer Review Verification

As an international indexing hub, Medfolium accommodates both rapid-publication clinical perspectives and permanent academic research. To maintain the integrity of our digital vault, we enforce distinct review requirements based on the submission track:

• Track 1: Clinical Perspectives (Editorial Triage): Direct submissions of expert commentary, policy reflections, and general clinical opinions undergo rigorous Editorial Triage by our in-house medical desk. This ensures clinical relevance, structural integrity, and originality before publication.
• Track 2: The Academic Record (Pre-Verified Peer Review): Medfolium requires that all Original Clinical Research and Case Studies destined for DOI allocation must have already passed independent, double-blind peer review. When a regional medical society or independent author submits to Track 2, they must provide a formal “Peer Review Verification Declaration” or verifiable reports from a recognized academic body confirming that the manuscript was subjected to blinded academic scrutiny prior to submission to Medfolium.

Plagiarism & Originality

Medfolium enforces a zero-tolerance policy against academic misconduct, data fabrication, and plagiarism. Securing a global presence requires uncompromised originality.

• Mandatory iThenticate Screening: Prior to final publication and DOI minting, every manuscript must be digitally analyzed using iThenticate (Crossref Similarity Check).
• Similarity Thresholds: Manuscripts exhibiting a similarity index greater than 15% (excluding standard methodological phrasing and references) are subject to immediate editorial investigation and rejection.
• AI-Assisted Writing: The use of Artificial Intelligence (e.g., LLMs) to generate core scientific data or conclusions is strictly prohibited. AI tools may only be used for basic language editing and must be explicitly declared in the manuscript methodology.

Manuscript Formatting & Processing

To ensure that all hosted research meets the strict XML, PDF, and metadata formatting requirements of global indexers (such as DOAJ and PubMed), Medfolium offers two submission tracks for authors and partner societies:

• Camera-Ready Submissions: Societies with established editorial teams may submit fully formatted manuscripts and certified iThenticate reports that strictly adhere to Medfolium’s pre-press guidelines. These submissions are subject only to a baseline infrastructure hosting fee.
• Medfolium Managed Processing (APC): For societies or independent authors lacking pre-press infrastructure, Medfolium provides comprehensive technical processing. Subject to an Article Processing Charge (APC), our technical desk will conduct the official iThenticate plagiarism screening, execute professional academic typesetting, generate compliant metadata, and mint Crossref DOIs. This APC is entirely separate from the editorial review process; payment does not guarantee publication if a manuscript fails ethical or scientific scrutiny.

Corrections & Retractions

Medfolium is dedicated to preserving the absolute accuracy of the permanent scientific record. In the event that a published article is found to contain significant errors or breaches of ethical standards, we take immediate, transparent action in accordance with COPE guidelines.

• Errata & Corrigenda: Published for unintentional mathematical, methodological, or typographical errors that do not alter the core conclusion of the research.
• Retractions: Issued for papers demonstrating severe data manipulation, plagiarism, or ethical violations that invalidate the research findings. In such cases, the original DOI and metadata remain digitally archived with a permanent watermark explicitly indicating its retracted status.