Peer Review Policy

"The Research of Medical Science Review" is committed to publishing high-quality, original research across the broad spectrum of medical science. To ensure the scientific integrity and rigor of published articles, we implement a robust peer-review process. This policy outlines the responsibilities of editors, reviewers, and authors involved in the process.

2. Peer Review Process

• Double-blind review: We employ a double-blind peer-review process where the identities of authors and reviewers are kept anonymous throughout the process. This minimizes bias and promotes objective evaluation.
• Reviewer selection: Reviewers are chosen based on their expertise in the specific research area of the submitted manuscript. They must be actively involved in research and hold relevant qualifications.
• Number of reviewers: At least two qualified reviewers will be assigned to each manuscript. In exceptional cases, where expertise is limited, one reviewer may be consulted with additional editorial scrutiny.
• Reviewer responsibilities: Reviewers are expected to provide a comprehensive and constructive evaluation of the manuscript, focusing on:
  • Originality and significance: Does the research address an important question or provide new insights?
  • Methodology: Is the study design appropriate and well-executed? Are the methods clearly described and justified?
  • Results: Are the findings presented accurately and objectively? Are they supported by the data?
  • Discussion: Are the results interpreted appropriately? Are the limitations of the study acknowledged?
  • Ethical considerations: Did the study adhere to ethical guidelines?
  • Overall quality: Is the manuscript well-written, clear, and concise?
• Author response: Authors are given the opportunity to address reviewer comments and revise their manuscript. Authors are expected to respond to all reviewer comments thoughtfully and provide justifications for any changes made.
• Editorial decision: The Editor-in-Chief, in consultation with other editors, makes the final decision on publication based on the reviewer feedback and the revised manuscript.

3. Confidentiality

The identities of authors and reviewers are kept strictly confidential throughout the review process. Reviewers are expected to maintain the confidentiality of the manuscript and any associated information.

4. Conflicts of interest

Reviewers must disclose any potential conflicts of interest, such as personal or professional relationships with the authors, financial interests in the research topic, or involvement in competing work. Editors will exclude reviewers with declared conflicts of interest.