Peer Review Process

Type of Peer Review: Double Blind Peer Review.

All submissions should conform to the Uniform Requirements for Manuscripts Submitted to Medical Journals by ICMJE.

                           

1. Manuscript Submission

The corresponding or submitting author submits the manuscript to the journal. This is only via an online submission system.

2. Plagiarism Check

The Editorial Office checks that the manuscript adheres to the requirements described in the journal’s Author Guidelines. Journal stick to plagiarism policy, plagiarism is checked by the Turnitin. The quality of the manuscript is not assessed at this point.

3. Assessment by the Editor-in-Chief (EIC)

The EIC checks the manuscript, considering its scope, originality, and merits. The EiC may reject the manuscript at this stage.

4. Assessment by the Academic Editor

EIC assign an academic editor according to the content of the manuscript and the specialization of the editors.

5. Assessment by the reviewers

The handling editor sends invitations to individuals he or she believes would be reviewers. As responses are received, further invitations are issued, until the required number of reviewers is secured.

6. Response to Invitations

Potential reviewers consider the invitation against their own expertise, conflicts of interest, and availability. They then accept or decline the invitation to review. If possible, when declining, they might also suggest alternative reviewers.

7. Review is Conducted

The reviewer sets time aside to read the manuscript several times. The first read is used to form an initial impression of the work. If major problems are found at this stage, the reviewer may feel comfortable rejecting the manuscript without further work. Otherwise, they will read the manuscript several more times, taking notes to build a detailed point-by-point review. The review is then submitted to the journal, with the reviewer’s recommendation (e.g. to revise, accept, or reject the manuscript).

8. Journal Evaluates the Reviews

The handling academic editor considers all the returned reviews before deciding. If the reviews differ widely, the editor may invite an additional reviewer to get an extra opinion before deciding.

9. The decision is communicated

The academic editor sends a decision email to the author, including any relevant reviewer's comments. Comments will be anonymous if the journal follows a single-anonymous or double-anonymous peer review model.

10. Plagiarism check and production

Revised manuscript submitted by the author is checked once again for plagiarism by Turnitin. If accepted, the manuscript is sent to production. If the manuscript is rejected or sent back for either major or minor revision, the handling editor should include constructive comments from the reviewers to help the author improve the manuscript. Reviewers should also be sent an email or letter letting them know the outcome of their review. If the manuscript was sent back for revision, the reviewers should expect to receive a new version, unless they have opted out of further participation. However, where only minor changes were requested, this follow-up review might be done by the handling academic editor.

Average time during the publication process

  • The standard time from submission to the first decision of preliminary assessment is 3 weeks for regular manuscripts.
  • The average time for the first stage review of any manuscript is 6 weeks.
  • The average time for the second stage evaluation after receiving the revised manuscript 9 weeks.
  • The average time for publication of any manuscript is 12 weeks.