All manuscripts submitted to Journal of Reviews in Medical Sciences go through a double-blind, peer-review process, meaning both the author and the reviewer’s identity are unknown to each other. The editor is under no obligation to send a submitted manuscript for review and they are under no obligation to accept or reject a manuscript based on the recommendations of a reviewer. The peer-review process is designed to provide both the author and the editor unbiased, critical feedback on the suitability of the manuscript for publication. Suitability includes originality, relevance to the field of Journal of Reviews in Medical Sciences, integrity of any research studies, and overall quality of writing.
Exclusion will not be based on insignificant or inconclusive findings. Journal of Reviews in Medical Sciences encourages submissions with such findings, as it believes they are equally relevant to advance learning in the field.
Taken together, the editorial process comprises 7 steps:
1. Review by editorial office
Upon reception of the manuscript, the editorial office reviews the document to ensure adhesion to author guidelines (format, style, sections, references, etc.), which are available at the journal website.
2. Review by the editor in chief
The editor in chief reviews the manuscript, and validates if the theme, originality and scientific quality of the paper are fit to be published in the journal.
The manuscript is evaluated for plagiarism, double publication and related issues.
The manuscript may be rejected at this step, in which case the main author will receive notification.
3. Assignment to an associate editor
If the previous step is cleared, the editor in chief may assign the manuscript to an assistant editor with expertise in the field, who will be in charge of inviting reviewers.
The editor in chief will ensure that the assistant editor has no relevant conflict of interest according to COPE guidelines.
4. Reviewer invitation
The editor in charge will invite reviewers, who must be individuals with expertise in the field. The number of reviewers may vary according to the study type but will be at least two. An individual will not be considered as potential reviewer if a relevant conflict of interest exists.
5. Manuscript review
Reviewers will critically review the manuscript and must submit a recommendation among four possible options (Accept, Minor changes, Major changes or Reject). They may also submit comments for the author aimed to improve the quality of the manuscript.
Reviewers are encouraged to provide an exhaustive and objective review.
6. Editorial decision
The editor in charge will receive the recommendations issued by reviewers, so a final decision can be made.
If reviewers disagree in their recommendation, it is possible for the editor to invite additional reviewers.
Whenever needed, a review of statistical methodology may be carried out by members of the editorial committee fit to do so.
7. Communication of editorial decision
The editor contacts the main author via email with the final decision and comments made by the reviewers.
If the decision is Minor/Major changes, the editor will resubmit the manuscript to reviewers for a complete evaluation.
Lastly, the editorial office double-checks for grammar, style and references in the final version of the manuscript. In all cases, before publication the author receives the final proofs for its approval before publication.
Processing of manuscripts is ruled by COPE best practice guidelines available at https://publicationethics.org/resources/code-conduct.