Peer Review Process

The peer review process is the cornerstone of scientific integrity in our journal. It is a critical evaluation method where a research manuscript is reviewed by experts in the same field (called reviewers or peers). Its purpose is to ensure that only valid, original, and high-quality research is published. We utilize a double-blind peer review system, where the identities of both the authors and the reviewers are kept confidential from each other.

 

The Peer Review Workflow

 

Here are the steps every submitted manuscript goes through:

1. Manuscript Submission The author submits their manuscript through our online system. At this stage, the submission is checked for completeness and its alignment with the journal's scope.

2. Initial Editorial Screening The Editor-in-Chief or a designated editor conducts an initial screening to assess:

  • Scope Fit: Does the research topic align with the journal's focus?

  • Basic Quality: Is the manuscript well-structured and written clearly?

  • Plagiarism Check: The manuscript will undergo a check using plagiarism detection software (such as Turnitin or iThenticate) to identify any content overlap.

If a manuscript does not meet these criteria, it may be rejected at this stage (desk reject) without further review.

3. Reviewer Selection The editor will invite 2-3 expert reviewers who have a deep understanding of the manuscript's specific field. Reviewers are selected based on their competence, experience, and publication record.

4. The Review Process Reviewers are given 2-4 weeks to evaluate the manuscript. They assess several key aspects, including:

  • Scientific Validity: Are the research design, methods, and data analysis appropriate?

  • Significance: Do the findings make a significant contribution to the medical and health sciences?

  • Research Ethics: Does the research comply with ethical standards, especially when involving human subjects or animals?

  • Clarity and Structure: Is the manuscript written clearly and organized logically?

5. Reviewer Recommendation Based on their evaluation, each reviewer will provide a recommendation to the editor:

  • Accepted: The manuscript is ready for publication.

  • Minor Revisions: The manuscript can be accepted after minor improvements are made.

  • Major Revisions: The manuscript has substantial issues that require significant revisions and will be re-evaluated after changes are submitted.

  • Rejected: The manuscript does not meet the journal's standards and is not suitable for publication.

6. Final Editorial Decision The editor reviews all comments from the reviewers and makes a final decision. This decision is then communicated to the author along with the reviewers' feedback.

7. Author Revision If revisions are requested, the author must respond to each point of feedback from the reviewers and editor. The revised manuscript is then resubmitted.

8. Publication Once the manuscript is accepted, it proceeds to copyediting, layout, and final publication.

 

Our Code of Ethics for Reviewers

 

We expect all our reviewers to:

  • Maintain the confidentiality of the manuscript under review.

  • Provide an objective and unbiased assessment.

  • Disclose any potential conflicts of interest.

  • Offer constructive and professional feedback.

We believe that a rigorous and transparent peer review process is key to maintaining scientific quality and making a positive impact on future clinical practice and research.