Peer Review Policy

The practice of peer review is to ensure that only good research is published. The Electronic Journal of Medical Research (EJMR) is committed to prompt evaluation and publication of fully accepted articles and operates a conventional double-blind reviewing policy in which the author’s name remains anonymous to reviewers and vice versa. Upon submission of an article, all articles undergo a rigorous review process to ensure a thorough and detailed review by experts in the article’s interest area.

All articles are peer reviewed following the procedure outlined below:

• The author submits an article, and it receives an article tracking number, which should be referred to in any subsequent communications between the corresponding author and the editor.
• The article is assessed by the journal editor against the scope of the journal and the Instructions to Authors to make sure it includes the required sections.
• The editor decides whether to send the article out for review or not. If the decision is to accept, then it is sent for peer review to assess the scientific quality of the article or if the decision is not to accept, the editor contacts the author with the decision.
• The reviewer(s) review the article and provide the editor with his/her comments, suggestions and recommendations (reject, revise or accept).
• Editor checks the reviews and takes the decision whether to accept, reject, or revise (usually flagged as either major or minor).
• The editor contacts the author with the decision.
• If there are revisions, the authors make the necessary changes and re-submit.
• Once the article is accepted by the editor, it moves into production and is published.
• Authors of articles that are not accepted are notified promptly, and then the authors can choose to transfer their articles to another journal.

1. Peer Review Model

We follow a double-blind peer review process:
• Authors do not know the identity of the reviewers.
• Reviewers do not know the identity of the authors.
This model ensures impartiality and eliminates biases related to reputation, institution, gender, or nationality.

2. Manuscript Review Workflow

2.1. Initial Screening by Editors

• Each submitted manuscript is reviewed by the editorial team to ensure it meets the journal’s scope and author guidelines.
• Manuscripts that do not meet the minimum criteria may be rejected without external review.

2.2. Reviewer Assignment

• Manuscripts passing the initial screening are assigned to at least two independent reviewers with subject matter expertise.
• Reviewers are selected based on their scientific qualifications, experience, and conflict-of-interest disclosures.

2.3. Reviewer Evaluation

Reviewers assess the manuscript on:
• Originality and novelty of the research.
• Scientific soundness and methodological rigor.
• Significance and contribution to the field.
• Clarity of presentation and logical organization.
• Ethical compliance, including IRB approvals, conflict of interest statements, and data integrity.

2.4. Reviewer Recommendations

Reviewers may recommend one of the following:

• Accept
• Minor revision
• Major revision
• Reject

2.5. Editorial Decision

• The final decision is made by the editorial team based on reviewers’ input.
• In case of conflicting reviews, an additional reviewer may be invited or the matter may be discussed internally by the editorial board.

3. Communication with Authors

• All decisions (acceptance, revisions, or rejection) are communicated to the corresponding author along with reviewer comments.
• A unique tracking number is assigned to each manuscript to be used in all communications.
• If revisions are requested, authors must respond point-by-point to each reviewer comment and submit the revised manuscript within the given timeframe.

4. Duration of Review

The peer review process typically takes 4 to 6 weeks, depending on reviewer availability and the complexity of the submission. Delays are communicated to authors proactively.

5. Appeals Process

Authors may appeal a rejection by submitting a detailed rebuttal letter. Appeals are reviewed by a senior editor or the editorial board, and the final decision is communicated promptly.

6. Ethics and Confidentiality

• All manuscripts and communications are handled with strict confidentiality.
• Reviewers must not use or disclose any information in the manuscript prior to publication.
• We adhere to the ethical guidelines set by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) for handling complaints and misconduct.

7. Feedback and Recognition for Reviewers

• Reviewers receive acknowledgment for their service and may receive certificates of contribution.
• Constructive feedback is provided to reviewers, especially those new to the process, to help improve their evaluation skills.

8. Continuous Improvement

We routinely evaluate and update our peer review policies to align with emerging trends, technological advancements, and feedback from reviewers, authors, and editors. We welcome suggestions that help improve the efficiency and quality of our review system.