Peer review

Peer Review Process – IJMS

1. Overview of the Peer Review Process

The International Journal of Medical Sciences (IJMS) implements a rigorous peer review system to ensure the quality, originality, relevance, and integrity of all published research. The peer review process plays a vital role in enhancing manuscript quality, validating scientific contributions, and upholding ethical and academic standards in medical and health sciences.

2. Type of Peer Review

IJMS follows a double-blind peer review model, where the identities of both authors and reviewers are concealed throughout the review process. This ensures objectivity, fairness, and minimization of bias.

3. Initial Editorial Screening

Upon submission, manuscripts are evaluated by the Editor-in-Chief or an assigned editor to assess:

  • Relevance to the journal’s scope
  • Originality and scientific contribution
  • Methodological quality
  • Compliance with formatting guidelines
  • Adherence to ethical standards

Submissions are screened for plagiarism using recognized detection tools. Similarity reports are carefully assessed, excluding references and standard methodological language. Manuscripts may also be evaluated for responsible and transparent use of AI-assisted technologies in line with international publishing ethics.

4. Reviewer Selection and Assignment

Manuscripts that pass the initial screening are assigned to at least two independent reviewers with relevant expertise. Reviewers are selected based on academic qualifications, subject expertise, and the absence of conflicts of interest.

5. Review Criteria

  • Originality and contribution to medical knowledge
  • Relevance to the journal’s scope
  • Scientific and methodological rigor
  • Ethical compliance (e.g., IRB approval, informed consent where applicable)
  • Quality of data analysis and interpretation
  • Clarity, coherence, and academic writing quality

6. Reviewer Reports and Recommendations

Reviewers provide detailed and constructive feedback and recommend one of the following:

  • Accept without revision
  • Accept with minor revisions
  • Major revisions required (revise and resubmit)
  • Reject

7. Editorial Decision-Making

Final decisions are made by the editorial team based on reviewer reports, manuscript quality, and alignment with the journal’s aims and scope. In cases of conflicting reviews, additional expert opinions may be requested.

8. Revision Process

Authors invited to revise their manuscripts must submit a revised version along with a detailed response to reviewer comments. Revised manuscripts may be returned to the original reviewers for further evaluation.

9. Timeline of the Peer Review Process

  • Initial editorial screening: 1–2 weeks
  • Peer review stage: 4–8 weeks
  • Revision and final decision: depends on the extent of revisions

10. Confidentiality and Anonymity

All manuscripts and reviewer reports are treated as strictly confidential. Reviewers must not disclose manuscript content or use unpublished material for personal or professional purposes. Author and reviewer anonymity is maintained throughout the process.

11. Ethical Considerations in Peer Review

Editors and reviewers are expected to adhere to international ethical standards. They must declare any conflicts of interest, conduct reviews objectively, and report suspected ethical misconduct in accordance with recognized publishing guidelines.

12. Appeals and Complaints

Authors may appeal editorial decisions by submitting a justified written request. All appeals and complaints related to the peer review process are handled transparently and fairly by the editorial board.

13. Final Acceptance and Publication

Accepted manuscripts undergo copyediting and proofreading before publication. Authors are required to review and approve the final proofs prior to publication.