Peer Review Process
A rigorous, fair and confidential editorial assessment designed to uphold scientific quality, research integrity and relevance to medical and allied biosciences.
Purpose of Peer Review
Peer review is central to the journal’s commitment to publishing reliable, original and clinically or scientifically meaningful work. Reviewers evaluate the manuscript’s academic merit, methodological quality, ethical compliance, clarity and contribution to the relevant field.
Editorial decisions are based on the manuscript itself, the reviewers’ recommendations and the judgment of the handling editor. Reviewers advise the editor; the final publication decision remains with the Editor-in-Chief or a designated editor.
How the Process Works
Submission and Administrative Check
The editorial office checks the submission for completeness, formatting, authorship information, ethical declarations, plagiarism concerns and compliance with the journal’s scope and author guidelines. Incomplete submissions may be returned before editorial assessment.
Initial Editorial Screening
The Editor-in-Chief or a handling editor assesses originality, scientific relevance, presentation quality and suitability for the journal. Manuscripts that fall outside the journal’s scope or do not meet basic standards may be declined without external review.
Reviewer Selection
Suitable independent reviewers with expertise in the manuscript’s subject area are invited. Reviewers must disclose potential conflicts of interest and decline the invitation when an impartial review cannot be provided.
Independent Peer Review
Reviewers assess scientific soundness, study design, analysis, interpretation, originality, ethical standards, references and clarity. They provide confidential comments to the editor and constructive comments intended for the authors.
Editorial Decision
After considering the reviewer reports, the editor issues a decision. When reviewer opinions differ substantially, the editor may seek an additional review or make a decision based on the manuscript and the available reports.
Author Revision
Authors receiving a revision decision should submit a revised manuscript together with a detailed, point-by-point response. All reviewer comments should be addressed clearly, and changes in the manuscript should be identified where requested.
Re-evaluation and Final Decision
Revised manuscripts may be returned to the original reviewers or assessed by the editor. The final decision may be acceptance, further revision or rejection. Acceptance is confirmed only after all scientific and editorial requirements have been satisfied.
Production and Publication
Accepted manuscripts proceed to copyediting, typesetting and author proofing. Authors must check proofs carefully and return corrections promptly. Substantive changes are not normally permitted at the proof stage without editorial approval.
Possible Editorial Decisions
Review Timeline
The journal aims to manage submissions efficiently while preserving the quality and independence of peer review. Review times may vary according to reviewer availability, subject complexity, the extent of revision required and the responsiveness of authors.
Authors may contact the editorial office for a status update when a manuscript has remained at the same stage for an extended period. Requests for unusually rapid decisions cannot override the journal’s editorial and ethical standards.
Confidentiality
Submitted manuscripts are confidential documents. Editors and reviewers must not share, discuss, reproduce or use unpublished information from a manuscript for personal advantage. Reviewer reports and editorial correspondence are also treated as confidential unless disclosure is required by law, regulation or an investigation into publication ethics.
Conflicts of Interest
Editors and reviewers must disclose any financial, professional, personal or academic relationship that could affect—or reasonably be perceived to affect—their judgment. A different editor or reviewer will be appointed when a relevant conflict exists.
Research and Publication Ethics
Manuscripts involving human participants, identifiable patient information, animals, clinical trials or sensitive data must include the appropriate ethical approvals, consent statements and registration information. Suspected plagiarism, duplicate publication, data fabrication, inappropriate authorship or other misconduct may be investigated before or after publication.
Reviewer Conduct
Reviews should be evidence-based, respectful, specific and focused on improving the work. Personal criticism, discriminatory language and requests for unnecessary citations are not acceptable. Reviewers should complete reports within the agreed period or notify the editorial office promptly when an extension is required.
Appeals and Complaints
Authors may appeal an editorial decision by submitting a clear scientific justification and a point-by-point response to the decision letter. Appeals are considered by the Editor-in-Chief or another senior editor who was not directly involved, where appropriate. An appeal does not guarantee reconsideration or acceptance.