Peer Review Policy

Peer Review and Editorial Process

The International Journal of Medical Science in Clinical Research & Review (IJMSCRR) follows a rigorous, fair, transparent, and ethical peer review process to ensure the quality, integrity, originality, and scientific validity of published research.

All manuscripts are evaluated on the basis of academic merit, originality, methodological quality, clarity, scientific significance, ethical compliance, and relevance to the journal’s scope. Editorial and peer-review decisions are made without discrimination based on authors’ nationality, gender, institutional affiliation, or personal background.

The journal follows internationally recognized principles of publication ethics and good editorial practice, including the recommendations of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE).

Type of Peer Review

IJMSCRR operates a Double-Anonymous Peer Review system.

  • Authors do not know the identities of the reviewers.

  • Reviewers do not know the identities of the authors.

This process is intended to support an objective, independent, and impartial evaluation of submitted manuscripts.

1. Initial Editorial Assessment

Upon submission, the Editor-in-Chief or an assigned editor conducts an initial editorial assessment to determine whether the manuscript:

  • falls within the journal’s scope;

  • meets the basic requirements of the journal;

  • demonstrates sufficient originality and scientific relevance;

  • meets applicable ethical and research-integrity requirements;

  • has an appropriate study design and methodology; and

  • is suitable for external peer review.

All submissions may undergo plagiarism or similarity screening before or during the editorial assessment.

Manuscripts may be rejected without external peer review if they fall outside the journal’s scope, lack sufficient originality, contain serious methodological or ethical concerns, or do not meet the journal’s minimum scientific or editorial requirements.

2. Reviewer Selection

Manuscripts that pass the initial editorial assessment are normally assigned to a minimum of two independent reviewers with relevant subject expertise.

Reviewers are selected based on their:

  • subject expertise;

  • academic and research experience;

  • relevant publication record; and

  • absence of known conflicts of interest.

Authors may suggest potential reviewers where permitted; however, the final selection of reviewers remains solely at the discretion of the editorial team.

3. Conflict of Interest

Reviewers must disclose any actual, potential, or perceived conflict of interest before accepting a manuscript for review.

Reviewers should decline an assignment when a conflict of interest could compromise, or reasonably appear to compromise, their impartiality.

Editors and Editorial Board members should also recuse themselves from handling manuscripts where a conflict of interest exists.

4. Peer Review Process

Reviewers evaluate manuscripts according to appropriate scholarly and scientific criteria, including:

  • originality and significance;

  • scientific quality;

  • appropriateness of study design and methodology;

  • accuracy and interpretation of data;

  • clarity and organization;

  • relevance to the journal’s scope; and

  • ethical compliance.

Reviewers are expected to provide objective, constructive, and evidence-based comments.

Reviewer recommendations may include:

  • Accept

  • Minor Revision

  • Major Revision

  • Reject

Reviewer recommendations are advisory. The final editorial decision remains the responsibility of the Editor-in-Chief or an authorized handling editor.

5. Editorial Decision

The Editor-in-Chief or assigned editor considers the reviewers’ reports together with the manuscript’s scientific quality, ethical compliance, relevance, and overall suitability for publication.

The editorial decision may include:

  • Acceptance;

  • Minor Revision;

  • Major Revision; or

  • Rejection.

The journal is not obligated to follow a particular reviewer recommendation. The final decision regarding publication remains with the Editor-in-Chief or authorized editor.

Peer review does not guarantee acceptance or publication.

6. Revisions

When revisions are requested, authors must submit:

  • a revised version of the manuscript; and

  • a point-by-point response addressing the reviewers’ comments.

Authors should clearly identify substantive changes made to the manuscript where appropriate.

Revised manuscripts may be returned to the original reviewers or evaluated by other qualified reviewers when considered necessary.

Final acceptance is subject to satisfactory revision and editorial approval.

7. Confidentiality

All submitted manuscripts, reviewer reports, editorial communications, and related materials are treated as confidential.

Reviewers and editors must not disclose, reproduce, distribute, publicly discuss, or use unpublished information obtained during the peer review process for personal or professional advantage.

Reviewer identities remain confidential under the journal’s double-anonymous peer review system.

Confidentiality may be appropriately limited when disclosure is necessary for the investigation of suspected research misconduct, plagiarism, fraud, or other serious ethical concerns.

8. Plagiarism and Research Integrity Screening

All submitted manuscripts may be screened using appropriate plagiarism or similarity-detection tools before or during the peer review process.

Manuscripts involving plagiarism, duplicate publication, fabrication, falsification, inappropriate image manipulation, or other serious breaches of research integrity may be rejected or subjected to further investigation in accordance with the journal’s publication ethics policies.

Authors remain responsible for the originality, accuracy, integrity, and ethical compliance of their submitted work.

9. Communication with Authors

Authors are informed of editorial decisions through the journal’s submission system or official editorial communication channels.

Where applicable, anonymized reviewer comments are provided to authors together with the editorial decision.

Authors are expected to respond appropriately to reviewer comments and to provide a clear response to each substantive point raised during the review process.

10. Author Appeals

Authors may appeal an editorial decision by submitting a written and reasoned request to the editorial office.

An appeal should clearly explain the grounds for reconsideration and identify any factual or procedural concerns related to the editorial decision.

Appeals are reviewed by the Editor-in-Chief and/or an appropriate editor or Editorial Board member who was not directly involved in the original decision, where feasible.

The outcome of an appeal is final within the journal’s editorial process.

11. Editorial Independence

Editorial decisions are based on the scientific and scholarly merits of the manuscript and are independent of commercial interests, advertising, sponsorship, or other external influences.

The Editor-in-Chief and authorized editors retain responsibility for editorial decisions and the content published by the journal.

12. Typical Review Timeline

The journal aims to process manuscripts efficiently while maintaining appropriate standards of editorial assessment and peer review.

Typical processing timelines are:

  • Initial editorial assessment: usually within 7 days of submission;

  • Double-anonymous peer review: typically within 1–2 weeks, depending on reviewer availability;

  • Revision period: depends on the authors and the extent of revisions required;

  • Final editorial decision: generally within approximately 3–4 weeks of initial submission for manuscripts that do not require extensive revision.

The overall time from manuscript submission to publication may vary depending on reviewer availability, manuscript complexity, the number and extent of revisions required, author response time, and completion of publication requirements.

The journal aims to complete the editorial and peer-review process efficiently without compromising scientific quality, fairness, or review integrity.

13. Ethical Compliance

IJMSCRR follows internationally recognized principles of publication ethics and good editorial practice, including the recommendations and guidelines of:

  • Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE);

  • International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE); and

  • other relevant standards of responsible scholarly publishing.

The journal may investigate suspected publication misconduct, including plagiarism, duplicate publication, fabrication, falsification, unethical research practices, authorship disputes, and other breaches of publication ethics.

Depending on the findings, appropriate editorial action may include rejection, correction, expression of concern, or retraction.

The journal’s procedures are intended to protect the integrity of the scholarly record and maintain confidence among authors, reviewers, editors, and readers.

Final Statement

IJMSCRR is committed to maintaining a fair, confidential, independent, and scientifically rigorous peer review process. The journal’s double-anonymous peer review system is designed to support objective assessment while ensuring that final editorial responsibility remains with the Editor-in-Chief or authorized editor.