Focus and Scope

Clinical Management Issues is an open access, peer-reviewed journal published by SEEd Medical Publishers (online ISSN = 2283-3137).

The aim of the published case reports is to expand medical knowledge, allowing a better explanation of the practical application of a clinical guideline, or including an up-to-date review of medical knowledge in that field, or helping doctors to make better decisions in a “grey area”, or explaining how to manage a disease with an integrated approach between different specialists involved.

Clinical Management Issues also publishes unusual case reports (i.e. unusual side effects or adverse interactions involving medications, unexpected or unusual presentations of a disease, etc.), articles on clinical management of a disease, case series, editorials, and brief reports. Acceptance rate of submitted articles is about 90%.

Content is subject to peer-review and is editorially independent. This journal provides immediate open access to all of its articles (both HTML and PDF versions). 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.

Peer Review Process

This journal uses double-blind peer review: therefore, Authors’ identities are concealed from the Reviewers, and Reviewers’ identities are concealed from the Authors, throughout the review process. A summary of this process is available here.

1. Author submits the manuscript

The Author usually submits the paper via OJS online system. Occasionally, journal may accept submissions by email.

2. Managing Editor’s first assessment

All manuscripts receive an initial review by the Managing Editor, who checks:

  • Quality and consistency;
  • Plagiarism, using the iThenticate software and following the COPE guidelines;
  • Anonymization consistent with the double-blind peer review; and
  • Adherence to the journal’s Author Guidelines.

If the manuscript is not appropriate for the journal or is not sufficiently original and interesting may be promptly rejected. Sometimes, if the paper is not suitable for the journal, the Editor may suggest to submit the manuscript to a more appropriate journal.

Other manuscripts are sent to the peer review process.

3. Peer review process

The Managing Editor identifies possible Reviewers from SEEd database, PubMed, and Publons and sends invitations. Two to four Reviewers are required. About two weeks are given to the Reviewers to complete the review, give their recommendation (accept, decline, revisions required, resubmit for review, or resubmit elsewhere), and submit the checklist via web.

4. Managing Editor’s evaluation

The Managing Editor receives comments and recommendations from the Reviewers. If the Reviewers’ comments differ widely, an additional Reviewer may be invited in order to take a final decision on the manuscript.

The final Managing Editor’s decision can be:

  • Accept submission without editorial revisions.
  • Revisions required: the Author is invited to revise the manuscript to address specific concerns. Revised manuscripts are evaluated by the Managing Editor.
  • Resubmit for review: the Author is invited to substantially revise the manuscript in terms of consistency, writing, and organization before reconsideration. Resubmitted manuscripts are reviewed by the Managing Editor and Reviewers.
  • Resubmit elsewhere: the Author is invited to submit the manuscript to a more appropriate journal.
  • Decline submission: the paper is not adequate for publication in the journal, usually because of insufficient conceptual advance, major technical and/or interpretational problems, poor quality, or ethical problems.

Once the final decision is taken, the Managing Editor informs the Author. In all case, the Reviewer’s comments are sent to the Author.

5. Next steps

If the manuscript is accepted, the Managing Editor sends it to the editing process and checks any legal and administrative documentation. Finally, after the APC payment, the paper is published.

Publication Frequency

From September 2016, Clinical Management Issues (CMI) is published continuously.

Open Access Policy

Clinical Management Issues is an open access journal that provides immediate open access to all of its articles (both HTML and PDF versions) on the principle that making research freely available to the public supports a greater global exchange of knowledge.

Users have the right to read, download, copy, distribute, print, search, or link to the full texts of all the published articles in respect of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 License. For any different use you need to get permissions.

  1. All contents are freely available as both HTML and PDF files.
  2. CMI's Open Access without delay (e.g. no embargo period).
  3. CMI's funding model does not charge authors, readers or their institutions for access.

Creative Commons Licence

Clinical Management Issues
- - is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial 4.0 License.

Editorial Board


Lorenzo Pradelli. MD. AdRes Health Economics & Outcomes Research, Torino, Italy

Advisory Board

Oscar Alabiso. Department of Translational Medicine, University of Eastern Piedmont, Novara, (Italy). Oncology Division, University Hospital Maggiore della Carità, Novara (Italy)

Luigi Balbi. Former Head Physician of Internal Medicine Unit, Città della Salute e della Scienza di Torino University Hospital, Sant’Anna Hospital, Torino, Italy

Diego Beltrutti. Senior Consultant in Pain Medicine at Clinical Research Institute Humanitas, Rozzano (MI), Italy. Past President of WSPC (World Society of Pain Clinicians)

Vito Borzì. Head Physician of the first I Division of Internal Medicine, Vittorio Emanuele II Hospital, Catania (Italy)

Roger Chen. Department of Endocrinology. St Vincent’s Hospital, Sydney (Australia). Clinical Associate Professor, University of Sydney, Sidney (Australia)

Francesco Cipollini. Director of Internal Medicine Operative Unit, Amandola Hospital (AP), Italy

Giuseppe Civardi. Director of Internal Medicine Operative Unit, Po di Fiorenzuola d'Arda (PC), Italy

Fabio Di Stefano. Department of Internal Medicine, Allergology and Respiratory Pathophysiology Operative Unit, USL and University G. D’Annunzio, Chieti, Italy

Enrico Fusaro. Director of Rheumatology, Città della Salute e della Scienza di Torino University Hospital, Torino, Italy

Paolo Ghiringhelli. Director of Department of Internal Medicine, ASST Valle Olona, Saronno Hospital (VA), Italy

Claudio Marengo. Department of Internal Medicine, Santa Croce Hospital, Moncalieri (TO), Italy

Andrea Pizzini. General Practitioner, ASL TO2, Torino, Italy

Andrea Ungar. Regional Reference Center for Arterial Hypertension of the Elderly in Toscana. Syncope Unit, Geriatric Medicine and Cardiology, Careggi University Hospital, Firenze, Italy

Akinori Uruha. Department of Neurology, Tokyo Metropolitan Neurological Hospital, Tokyo, Japan

Orazio Zanetti. Head Physician Operative Unit Alzheimer-Center for Memory and Clinical Trials Service, IRCCS - S. Giovanni di Dio-Fatebenefratelli Center, Brescia, Italy

Managing Editor

Laura Fascio Pecetto. SEEd Medical Publishers, Torino - Italy

Ethical Guidelines

Conflict of interest

CMI 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.

Authors.All authors are required to complete the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) form for Disclosure of Potential Conflicts of Interest and to return it to the Managing Editor (

Authors from pharmaceutical companies, or other commercial organizations, should declare these as competing interests on submission. They should also adhere to the Good Publication Practice guidelines for pharmaceutical companies (GPP3), 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, communications and consulting companies.

Editorial Staff. Editors declare any conflict of interest once a year. Decisions on manuscripts in which they have a conflict of interest will be made by another editor.

Peer Reviewers. All peer reviewers should declare any conflict of interests upon acceptance to review a paper.


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 (

Informed consent

Every clinical trial submitted to CMI 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 .

Plagiarism and Other Misconducts

CMI follows the COPE guidelines concerning the handling of plagiarism and any research or editorial miscoduct ( 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, CMI editors will contact the authors requiring an explanation. If this is not satisfactory, the journal may contact the author’s institution.

In specific cases, peer reviewers are asked to check images for falsification/fabrication 

Crossref Similarity Check

Redundant publications will be managed in the same way, once again following COPE guidelines (

SEEd Medical Publishers uses the iThenticate software to detect instances of overlapping and similar text in submitted manuscripts. Wherever you see the “Similarity Check Deposited” or “Similarity Check Depositor” logos, you can be reassured that the publisher whose content you are reading is committed to actively combating plagiarism and publishing original research. View SEEd Medical Publishers’s plagiarism policy above. To find out more about Similarity Check visit

Appeals and complaints

Clinical Management Issues adheres to COPE guidelines regarding appeals to editorial decisions and complaints.


An 'author' is generally considered to be someone who has made substantive intellectual contributions to a published study. According to the ICMJE guidelines, to qualify as an author one should have:

  1. Substantial contributions to the conception or design of the work; or the acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data for the work; AND
  2. Drafting the work or revising it critically for important intellectual content; AND
  3. Final approval of the version to be published; AND
  4. Agreement to be accountable for all aspects of the work in ensuring that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work are appropriately investigated and resolved.

Acquisition of funding, collection of data, or general supervision of the research group, alone, does not usually justify authorship.

Clinical Management Issues does not permit the changing, adding or deleting of authors after publication of the paper.


All contributors who do not meet the criteria for authorship should be listed in an ‘Acknowledgements’ section. Examples of those who might be acknowledged include a person who provided purely technical help or writing assistance.

Medical Writers

The involvement of medical writers or anyone else who assisted with the preparation of the manuscript content should be acknowledged, along with their source of funding, as described in the European Medical Writers Association (EMWA) guidelines. The role of medical writers should be acknowledged explicitly in the ‘Acknowledgements’.

Referees’ Rewards

Given the crucial role of peer review process in warranting the high scientific quality of the publications, two different kinds of rewards are offered to every referee of this journal:

  • A 30% discount on the publication fee for article submissions on CMI journal; and
  • The possibility to export one’s review to Publons.
What is Publons?

Publons is a free service for researchers to effortlessly track, verify and showcase their previously hidden reviewing and editorial contributions across all the world’s journals, without compromising reviewer anonymity or infringing upon journal review models.

With a Publons account, researchers have access to verified evidence of their peer review and editorial contributions for inclusion in their CV, bio, and funding and promotion applications.

How does it work?

Whenever you submit a review for one of SEEd Medical Publishers’s journals (, you will be asked if you want to instantly add a verified record of that review to your Publons profile in the Open Journal Systems manuscripts review submission form.

Peer Reviewers Guidelines

Submitted manuscripts are reviewed by two to four experts. CMI 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 select their recommendation among the following:

  • Accept submission without editorial revisions.
  • Revisions required: the author is invited to revise the manuscript to address specific concerns.
  • Resubmit for review: the author is invited to substantially revise the manuscript in terms of consistency, writing, and organization before reconsideration.
  • Resubmit elsewhere: the author is invited to submit the manuscript to a more appropriate journal.
  • Decline submission: the paper is not adequate for publication in the journal.

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 CMI 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 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 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.

All peer reviewers are asked to declare their competing interests in relation to the paper they are reviewing. The peer reviewer declaration is included in the confidential comment report.

In the context of peer review, a competing interest exists when the reviewer’s interpretation of data or presentation of information may be influenced by their personal or financial relationship with other people or organizations. Reviewers should disclose any financial competing interests but also any non-financial competing interests that may cause them embarrassment were they to become public after the publication of the manuscript.


Reviewers are asked to complete a declaration, after considering the following questions:

  • In the past five years, have you received reimbursements, fees, funding, or salary from an organization that may in any way gain or lose financially from the publication of this paper, either now or in the future?
  • Do you hold any stocks or shares in an organization that may in any way gain or lose financially from the publication of this paper, either now or in the future?
  • Do you hold or are you currently applying for any patents relating to the content of the manuscript? Have you received reimbursements, fees, funding, or salary from an organization that holds or has applied for patents relating to the content of the manuscript?
  • Do you have any other financial competing interests?
  • Do you have any non-financial competing interests in relation to this paper?