Editorial Policies

Focus and Scope

Reviews in Health Care is an open access, peer-reviewed general-interest biomedical journal with a broad readership. It is published continuosly by SEEd Medical Publishers.

The aim of this journal is to provide clinical content of the highest quality, authority and accessibility. It considers any original review (both systematic and narrative) from clinical to economical subjectsIt considers any original review (both systematic and narrative) from clinical to economical subjects. We are primarily interested in reviews concerning drugs, devices and diseases, but submission of reviews about surgical procedures or laboratory or epidemiological methodologies and techniques is of great interest to the journal. Acceptance rate of submitted articles is about 90%.

Content is subject to peer-review and is editorially independent. This journal does not charge article processing charges or submission charges. Authors are asked to state any professional and financial situations that might be perceived as causing a conflict of interest with respect to integrity of content. The Declaration of Financial Competing Interests, that should be filled, signed and sent to the Publisher, is downloadable here.


Section Policies


Editorials are short articles on issues of topical importance. We encourage our editorial writers to express their opinions, giving the author the opportunity to present criticism or address controversy. The intention is very much that the article should offer a personal perspective on a topic of recent interest.

(Figures and tables can be included in editorials, if necessary).

Word limit: about 1,000-1,500 words

Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Unchecked Peer Reviewed

Narrative reviews

Narrative reviews address a specific question or issue that is relevant for clinical practice and provide an evidence-based, balanced, patient-oriented review on a focused topic. Narrative reviews should include the clinical question or issue and its importance for general medical practice, speciality practice, or public health; description of how the relevant evidence was identified, assessed for quality, and selected for inclusion; synthesis of the available evidence such that the best-quality evidence (e.g., well-conducted clinical trials, meta-analyses, and prospective cohort studies) should receive the greatest emphasis; and discussion of controversial aspects and unresolved issues. The text is limited to about 6,000 words (not including abstract, tables, figures, and references); about 6 tables, and no reference limit. The review should include a box with “The review in brief ”, listing the key points of the review, and a box with “Questions for further research”.

Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed

Systematic reviews

Systematic reviews and meta-analyses are a particular type of original articles that perform systematic, critical assessment of literature and data sources pertaining to clinical topics, emphasizing factors such as cause, diagnosis, prognosis, therapy, or prevention. All articles or data sources should be searched for and selected systematically for inclusion and critically evaluated, and the search and selection process should be described in detail in the manuscript. The specific type of study or analysis, population, intervention, exposure, and tests or outcomes should be described for each article or data source. A structured abstract of about 300-600 characters is required; for more information, see instructions below for preparing structured abstracts. The text is limited to 6,000 words (not including abstract, tables, figures, and references); about 6 tables (a flow diagram that depicts search and selection processes as well as evidence tables should be included), and there are no reference limits. The review should include a box with “The review in brief ”, listing the key points of the review, and a box with “Questions for further research”.

Meta-analyses also will be considered as reviews as long as they follow the instructions for systematic reviews. Authors of reports of meta-analyses of randomized trials are encouraged to follow the PRISMA guidelines (http://www.prisma-statement.org) and the QUORUM standards (http://www.consort-statement.org)

Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed


Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Unchecked Peer Reviewed

Letter to the Editor

Letters discussing a recent article in the journal or an important or critical topic in the medical field

Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Unchecked Peer Reviewed

Peer Review Process

All manuscripts receive an initial review by the Editor and/or Editorial Board to determine the originality, validity, and importance of content and conclusions.

Manuscripts with insufficient priority for publication will be rejected promptly.

Other manuscripts are sent (anonymous) for peer review. Authors will be sent reviewer comments that are judged to be useful to them. All reviewers remain anonymous.

Authors are informed about the Editor’s decision after the review process is completed.


Publication Frequency

Reviews in Health Care is published continuously


Open Access Policy

This journal provides immediate open access to its content on the principle that making research freely available to the public supports a greater global exchange of knowledge.


Open Access policy

Reviews in Health Care is an open access journal that provides immediate open access to all of its articles (in html) on the website. Users have the right to read, download, copy, distribute, print, search, or link to the full texts of all the articles published.

  1. All contents are freely available as html files.
  2. A free user registration online is required.
  3. RHC's Open Access without delay (e.g. no embargo period).
  4. RHC's funding model does not charge authors, readers or their institutions for access.


Creative Commons Licence

Reviews in Health Care - http://journals.seedmedicalpublishers.com/index.php/rhc - is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 License.


Editorial Board

Mario Di Napoli. Neurologia. Ospedale San Camillo de’Lellis, Rieti – Italy

Riccardo Asteggiano. Cardiologia del territorio, Torino – Italy
Gabriele Bianchi Porro. Cattedra di Gastroenterologia. Polo Universitario L. Sacco, Milano – Italy
Stefano Cascinu. Clinica di Oncologia Medica. Ospedali Riuniti di Ancona – Italy
Domenico Cucinotta. Dipartimento di Medicina Interna. Università di Messina – Italy
Fabio Farinati. Unità Semplice di Epatologia. Cattedra di Gastroenterologia. Azienda Ospedale di Padova – Italy
Franca Fruzzetti. Dipartimento di Ginecologia-Ostetricia.Università di Pisa – Italy
Giovanni Battista Gaeta. Cattedra di Malattie Infettive. Seconda Università di Napoli – Italy
Daniel Agustin Godoy. Neurointensive Care Unit. Sanatorio Pasteur, Catamarca – Argentina
Nicholas Koumpouros. U.O. di Neurochirurgia, Presidio Ospedaliero, Avezzano (AQ) – Italy
Giuseppe La Torre. Istituto di Igiene. Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore, Roma – Italy
Roberto Luzzati. Struttura Complessa Malattie Infettive, Azienda Ospedale/Università di Trieste – Italy
Roberto Manfredi. Cattedra di Malattie infettive. Università di Bologna – Italy
Paolo Manzoni. Dipartimento di Neonatologia. Ospedale Sant’Anna, Torino – Italy
Luca Masotti. Dirigente Medico, Medicina Interna, Ospedale Santa Maria Nuova, Firenze – Italy
Marco Orsetti. Università degli Studi del Piemonte Orientale, Novara – Italy
Giangiacomo Osella. S.C.D.U. Medicina Interna 1. A.O.U. San Luigi Gonzaga, Orbassano (TO) – Italy
Pierluigi Paggiaro. Dipartimento Cardio-Toracico Vascolare. Università di Pisa – Italy
Federico Pea. Istituto di Farmacologia Clinica e Tossicologia. Azienda Ospedaliero Universitaria SM Misericordia, Udine – Italy
Giovanni Pomponio. Istituto di Clinica Medica, Università di Ancona – Italy
Aurel Popa Wagner. Klinik für Neurologie. E.M.A. Universität, Greifswald – Germany
Alejandro A. Rabinstein. Associate Professor of Neurology. Mayo Clinic – USA
Puneetpal Singh. Department of Human Biology. Punjabi University, Patiala – India
Richard Albert Stein. Princeton University, New Jersey – USA
Domenico Lorenzo Urso. Medicina e Chirurgia di Accettazione e d’Urgenza, S.O. "N. Giannettasio" Rossano (CS) - Italy
Cezary Wojcik. Cell Biology. Indiana University School of Medicine. Evansville Center for Medical Education. Evansville – USA

Ombretta Bandi. SEEd Medical Publishers, Torino - Italy
Email: o.bandi@seedmedicalpublishers.com


Review Guidelines

Submitted manuscriptsare usually reviewed by two experts. Reviews in Health Care operates using a double-blind peer review system. Reviewers should ensure that their reports are anonymous and do not include identifiable information such as tracked changes or comments.

Peer reviewers will be asked to recommend whether a manuscript should be:

  • Accepted without editorial revisions
  • Revised, inviting the authors to revise their manuscript to address specific concerns before a final decision is reached
  • Rejected, usually on grounds of insufficient conceptual advance or major technical and/or interpretational problems

They should also alert the editors of any issues relating to author misconduct such as plagiarism and unethical behavior.

Publication of research articles and reviews by Reviews in Health Care is dependent primarily on their validity and coherence, as judged by peer reviewers and editors. The reviewers may also be asked whether the writing is comprehensible and how interesting they consider the article to be.

Points to consider

Reviewers are asked to provide detailed, constructive comments that will help the editors make a decision on publication and the author(s) improve their manuscript. A key issue is whether the work has serious flaws that should preclude its publication, or whether there are additional experiments or data required to support the conclusions drawn. Where possible, reviewers should provide references to substantiate their comments.

Reviewers should address the points below and indicate whether they consider any required revisions to be major compulsory revisions (if further analysis is required that may change the conclusions or additional controls are required to support the claims or the interpretations) or minor essential revisions

  • Is the question posed important and well defined?
  • Are the data sound and well controlled?
  • Is the interpretation (discussion and conclusion) well balanced and supported by the data?
  • Are the methods appropriate and well described, and are sufficient details provided to allow others to evaluate and/or replicate the work?
  • What are the strengths and weaknesses of the methods?
  • Can the writing, organization, tables and figures be improved?
  • Are there any ethical or competing interests issues you would like to raise?

Reviewers are reminded of the importance of timely reviews.
Any manuscript sent for peer review is a confidential document and should remain so until it is formally published.


Ethical Guidelines

Conflict of interest

Reviews in Health Care requires authors to declare to the editors any competing financial interests in relation to manuscript submitted. Competing interests are defined as those of a financial nature that, through their potential influence on behavior or content or from perception of such potential influences, could undermine the objectivity, integrity or perceived value of a publication. They can include any of the following:

-       Funding: research support by organizations that may gain or lose financially through this publication.

-       Employment: recent, present or anticipated employment by any organization that may gain or lose financially through this publication.

-       Personal financial interests: Stocks or shares in companies that may gain or lose financially through publication; consultation fees or other forms of remuneration from organizations that may gain or lose financially; patents or patent applications whose value may be affected by publication.

These declarations will be published in the Disclosure at the beginning of the html form and in the lower right corner of the first page in pdf form.

The corresponding author, on behalf of all authors of the paper, is required to fill and sign a specific form.



In case reports, the privacy of patients should be respected. The identification of the patient has to be impossible. If, for scientific reasons, the patient’s identity shouldn’t be disguised, the authors should require written consent from patients: the document should be at SEEd’s disposal. The Consent Request form should be asked to the editorial staff (o.bandi@seedmedicalpublishers.com).


Informed consent

Every clinical trial submitted to Reviews in Health Care should include a statement that the study obtained ethics approval by the ethical committee (or a simple acknowledgment , or a statement that it was not required), reporting also the name of the ethics committee and the ID, and a statement that participants gave informed consent before taking part.


Human/Animal Rights

For articles concerning research on human beings, Authors should also provide assurance that the study protocol conformed to the 1975 Declaration of Helsinki.

For studies involving animal experimentation, Authors should provide assurance that all animals received humane care according to the criteria described in the "Guide for the Care and Use of Laboratory Animals" published by the National Institutes of Health and available at https://grants.nih.gov/grants/olaw/Guide-for-the-Care-and-use-of-laboratory-animals.pdf .



Reviews in Health Care follows the COPE guidelines concerning the handling of plagiarism (http://publicationethics.org/resources/flowcharts). Therefore, if a submitted article contains plagiarism, i.e. unattributed use of large portions of text and/or data, presented as if they were by the author, Reviews in Health Care editors will contact the authors requiring an explanation. If this is not satisfactory, the journal may contact the author’s institution.

Redundant publications will be managed in the same way, once again following COPE guidelines (http://publicationethics.org/resources/flowcharts).