Advances in Medical Sciences is an international, peer-reviewed journal that welcomes original research articles and reviews on current advances in life sciences, preclinical and clinical medicine, and related disciplines.
The Journal’s primary aim is to make every effort to contribute to progress in medical sciences. The strive is to bridge laboratory and clinical settings with cutting edge research findings and new developments.
Advances in Medical Sciences publishes articles which bring novel insights into diagnostic and molecular imaging, offering essential prior knowledge for diagnosis and treatment indispensable in all areas of medical sciences. It also publishes articles on pathological sciences giving foundation knowledge on the overall study of human diseases. Through its publications Advances in Medical Sciences also stresses the importance of pharmaceutical sciences as a rapidly and ever expanding area of research on drug design, development, action and evaluation contributing significantly to a variety of scientific disciplines.
The journal welcomes submissions from the following disciplines:
- General and internal medicine,
- Cancer research,
- Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine,
- Immunology and Allergy,
- Pathology and Forensic Medicine,
- Cell and molecular Biology,
- Clinical and Experimental Pathology.
Only review articles from experts in the field will be considered for publication. The journal does not accept case reports.
Please see our Guide for Authors for information on article submission.
Benefits to authors
We also provide many author benefits, such as free PDFs, special discounts on Elsevier publications and much more. Please click here for more information on our author services.
Advances in Medical Sciences, founded in 1955, is the official journal of the Medical University of Bialystok, Poland.Hide full Aims & Scope
1. Gabbay J, le May A. Evidence based guidelines or collectively constructed “mindlines?” Ethnographic study of knowledge management in primary care. 2004;329(7473):1013. BMJ. [PMC free article][PubMed]
2. Prosser H, Almond S, Walley T. Influences on GPs’ decision to prescribe new drugs-the importance of who says what. Fam Pract. 2003;20(1):61–8.[PubMed]
3. Lexchin J. Should doctors be prescribing new drugs? The International Journal of Risk and Safety in Medicine. 2002;15:213–222.
4. Lexchin J. Models for financing the regulation of pharmaceutical promotion. Global Health. 2012;8:24.[PMC free article][PubMed]
5. Wood AJ. The safety of new medicines. The importance of asking the right questions. JAMA. 1999;281(18):1753–1754.[PubMed]
6. Woosley RL, Chen Y, Friedman JP, Gillis RA. Mechanism of the cardiotoxic actions of terfenadine. JAMA. 1993;269:1532–1536.[PubMed]
7. Choudhry NK, Fletcher RH, Soumerai SB. Systematic review: the relationship between clinical experience and quality of health care. Ann Intern Med. 2005;142(4):260–73.[PubMed]
8. Freiman MP. The rate of adoption of new procedures among physicians. The impact of specialty and practice characteristics. Med Care. 1985;23:939–45.[PubMed]
9. Hlatky MA, Cotugno H, O’Connor C, Mark DB, Pryor DB, Califf RM. Adoption of thrombolytic therapy in the management of acute myocardial infarction. Am J Cardiol. 1988;61:510–4.[PubMed]
10. Young MJ, Fried LS, Eisenberg J, Hershey J, Williams S. Do cardiologists have higher thresholds for recommending coronary arteriography than family physicians? Health Serv Res. 1987;22:623–35.[PMC free article][PubMed]
11. How many journal articles have been published (ever)? Available from. http://duncan.hull.name/2010/07/15/fifty-million/. Retrieved 9 Aug 2012.
12. O’Donnell M. Why doctors don’t read research papers: scientific papers are not written to disseminate information. BMJ. 2005;330(7485):256.[PMC free article][PubMed]
13. Steen RG. Retractions in the scientific literature: do authors deliberately commit research fraud? J Med Ethics. 2011 Feb;37(2):113–7. Epub 2010 Nov 15. [PubMed]
14. Cokol M, Iossifov I, Rodriguez-Esteban R, Rzhetsky A. How many scientific papers should be retracted? EMBO reports. 2007;8:422–423. doi:10.1038/sj.embor.7400970. [PMC free article][PubMed]
15. Barraclough K. Why doctors don’t read research papers. BMJ. 2004;329:1411. doi: 10.1136/bmj.329.7479.1411-a.
16. O’Donnell M. Why doctors don’t read research papers: Scientific papers are not written to disseminate information. BMJ. 2005;330:256. doi: 10.1136/bmj.330.7485.256-a. [PMC free article][PubMed]
17. Smith R. The trouble with medical journals. J R Soc Med. 2006 Mar;99(3):115–119.[PMC free article][PubMed]
18. Healy JB. Why do you write? Lancet. 1976 Jan 24;1(7952):204.[PubMed]
19. Journal Citation reports. Available from. http://admin-apps.isiknowledge.com/JCR/help/h_eigenfact.htm. Retrieved 11 Aug 2012.
20. Australian Research Council. Available from. http://www.arc.gov.au/era. Retrieved 8 Aug 2012.
21. Krumholz HM, Ross JS, Presler AH, Egilman DS. What have we learnt from Vioxx? BMJ. 2007;334(7585):120–3.[PMC free article][PubMed]
22. Reed Elsevier. Reed Elsevier 2010 Interim Results.Available from: http://www.reed-elsevier.com/mediacentre/pressreleases/2010/Pages/reed-elsevier-interim-results-2010.aspx. Retrieved 10 Aug 2012.
23. Collier R. Medical journal or marketing device? CMAJ. 2009 Sep 1;181(5):E83–E84. doi:10.1503/cmaj.091326. [PMC free article][PubMed]
24. National Health and Medical Research Council. Available from. http://www.nhmrc.gov.au/grants/rounds/projects/index.htm#2010. Retrieved 11 Aug 2012.
25. Ngune I, Jiwa M, Dadich A, Lotriet J, Sriram D. Effective recruitment strategies in primary care research: a systematic review. Qual Prim Care. 2012;20(2):115–23.[PubMed]
26. Herland K, Akselsen JP, Skjønsberg OH, Bjermer L. How representative are clinical study patients with asthma or COPD for a larger “real life” population of patients with obstructive lung disease? Respir Med. 2005;99(1):11–9.[PubMed]