Peer review process

 

Initial Screening by Editors:

​

Upon submission, manuscripts undergo an initial screening by the editorial team to assess their alignment with the journal's scope, significance, and novelty. Editors evaluate the manuscript based on predefined criteria, including originality, scientific rigor, relevance to the field, and potential impact on clinical practice or policy. Manuscripts deemed suitable for further consideration proceed to the peer review stage, while those that do not meet the journal's criteria are rejected with constructive feedback.

 

Multi-Stage Peer Review:

​

Accepted manuscripts undergo a multi-stage peer review process involving multiple rounds of evaluation by independent experts. In the first round, manuscripts are assigned to at least two external reviewers with relevant expertise in the subject area. Reviewers are selected based on their expertise, impartiality, and absence of conflicts of interest. To ensure diversity and international representation, at least three reviewers are selected from countries other than the countries of the manuscript's authors. Reviewers provide detailed evaluations of the manuscript's scientific merit, originality, methodology, significance, and potential impact. Based on the initial reviews, authors may be invited to revise and resubmit their manuscripts, addressing reviewer comments and revising their work accordingly.

​

Transparent Review Models:

 

Embrace transparent review models, such as open peer review or transparent peer review, to enhance accountability, transparency, and fairness in the peer review process. Under open peer review, reviewers' identities are disclosed to authors and readers, fostering constructive dialogue and accountability. Alternatively, transparent peer review involves publishing reviewers' comments alongside the final manuscript, providing readers with insights into the review process and decision-making.

​

Expert Editorial Oversight:

 

Editorial decisions are guided by the expertise and judgment of the journal's editorial team, who provide oversight and direction throughout the peer review process. Editors carefully consider reviewer feedback, author responses, and the overall scientific merit and significance of the manuscript when making decisions about acceptance, revision, or rejection. Editors may seek input from additional experts or consult with advisory boards or editorial committees to ensure comprehensive and informed decision-making.

​

Continuous Improvement and Innovation:

 

The peer review process is subject to continuous evaluation and improvement, with ongoing efforts to innovate and adapt to emerging challenges and opportunities. Journals invest in research and development initiatives to explore novel peer review models, technologies, and approaches aimed at enhancing efficiency, quality, and fairness in the review process. Editors and reviewers receive training, resources, and support to stay abreast of best practices, ethical guidelines, and advances in scholarly publishing and peer review.

​

Pre-Submission Peer Review or Preprint Review: ​

 

Authors offered the option to undergo pre-submission peer review or preprint review, where manuscripts are reviewed and critiqued by experts in the field before formal submission to the journal. (PDF) Pre-submission peer review provides authors with valuable feedback and suggestions for improvement early in the manuscript preparation process, helping to enhance the quality and readiness of submissions.

​

Diverse Reviewer Selection: diversity and inclusivity in reviewer selection by actively recruiting reviewers from diverse backgrounds, disciplines, geographic regions, and career stages is ensured (PDF). We aim for gender balance and representation of underrepresented groups among reviewers to minimize bias and enrich the diversity of perspectives in the review process.

​

Reviewer Training and Support: We provide comprehensive training and support for reviewers to enhance the quality and effectiveness of their reviews. We offer resources, guidelines, and workshops on peer review best practices, ethical standards, and critical appraisal skills to empower reviewers to conduct thorough and constructive evaluations.

​

Post-Publication Peer Review:

 

We implement post-publication peer review as a complementary or alternative model to traditional pre-publication peer review. Allow readers to submit comments, critiques, and corrections on published articles, which are evaluated by the editorial team and, if deemed appropriate, published alongside the article to foster ongoing scholarly discourse and refinement.

​

Quality Assurance and Audit:

 

W conduct regular quality assurance audits of the peer review process to ensure consistency, fairness, and adherence to established standards and guidelines. We monitor key performance indicators, such as reviewer response times, review completion rates, and reviewer satisfaction, to identify areas for improvement and optimization.

​

Editorial Independence and Transparency:

 

We maintain editorial independence and transparency throughout the peer review process, with clear delineation of editorial responsibilities, decision-making criteria, and potential conflicts of interest. We disclose editorial policies, practices, and decision-making criteria to authors, reviewers, and readers to promote trust, accountability, and transparency in the publication process

​

The journal's peer review process, including the criteria used for selecting reviewers and evaluating manuscripts described in the PDF attached.

The different stages of the peer review process, such as initial screening, external peer review, editorial decision-making, and revision explained in the attached PDF