Peer Review Policy

The journal generally follows a double-blind peer-review process. Author identities are concealed from reviewers, and reviewer identities are not disclosed to authors.

Another suitable review model may be used when required by the manuscript or reviewer availability.

Yes. A manuscript may be rejected during initial editorial screening if it:

• Falls outside the aim and scope of the journal.
• Lacks sufficient originality or scientific value.
• Contains major methodological or ethical concerns.
• Does not follow the journal’s submission requirements.
• Shows evidence of plagiarism, duplicate publication, or serious misconduct.
• Cannot be properly evaluated because of poor presentation or incomplete information.

Reviewers are selected according to subject expertise, publication experience, methodological knowledge, availability, and absence of conflicts of interest.

The editorial team may invite independent external reviewers, editorial board members, or other qualified specialists.

Manuscripts are normally evaluated by at least two independent reviewers. Additional reviewers may be invited when opinions differ or specialist expertise is required.

• Originality and importance of the work.
• Relevance to medical and allied biosciences.
• Clarity of the research question and objectives.
• Appropriateness of study design and methodology.
• Accuracy of data analysis and interpretation.
• Validity of the conclusions.
• Ethical approval, informed consent, and research integrity.
• Quality of tables, figures, references, and presentation.
• Possible plagiarism, duplication, or undisclosed conflicts.

• Accept: The manuscript is suitable for publication.
• Minor revision: Limited corrections are required.
• Major revision: Substantial improvement or clarification is required.
• Reject and resubmit: Major redevelopment is needed before a new submission.
• Reject: The manuscript is unsuitable for publication.

The final decision is made by the Editor-in-Chief, handling editor, or another authorized editor after considering reviewer reports, the manuscript, author responses, ethical issues, and journal standards.

Reviewer recommendations are advisory and do not replace editorial judgment.

Authors should submit a revised manuscript with a clear point-by-point response explaining how each reviewer and editor comment has been addressed.

Any disagreement should be explained politely and supported with evidence.

Yes. Revised manuscripts may be returned to the original reviewers or sent to new reviewers, particularly after major revision.

Editors and reviewers must treat manuscripts, reports, author responses, and editorial correspondence as confidential.

Unpublished information must not be shared or used for personal or professional advantage.

Editors and reviewers must disclose any conflict that could affect, or appear to affect, impartiality.

A reviewer should decline an invitation when a close collaboration, institutional relationship, financial interest, competition, or personal relationship may influence the review.

• Provide objective, respectful, and constructive comments.
• Avoid personal criticism or discriminatory language.
• Complete reviews within the agreed period whenever possible.
• Report suspected plagiarism or research misconduct to the editor.
• Maintain confidentiality.
• Declare conflicts of interest.
• Base recommendations on scientific and scholarly considerations.

Authors may suggest qualified reviewers or request the exclusion of particular individuals when permitted by the submission system. A valid reason should be given for exclusions.

The editor is not required to use suggested reviewers or accept exclusion requests.

Authors may submit a reasoned appeal when they believe a decision was based on a significant factual error, procedural problem, or misunderstanding.

The journal may ask an independent editor or reviewer to assess the appeal.

The journal may reconsider or correct an editorial decision when new evidence, an administrative error, an undisclosed conflict, or a significant ethical concern is identified.