Peer Review Policy

Journal of Modern Medical Science (JMMS)

Open Access | Bi-Annual | Double-Blind Peer Review

1. Purpose of Peer Review

Peer review at JMMS is designed to ensure that every published manuscript meets high standards of scientific validity, methodological rigor, ethical compliance, and academic clarity. The process serves not only as a quality control mechanism but also as a constructive dialogue that strengthens research before publication.

The journal recognizes peer review as a collaborative academic responsibility built on fairness, confidentiality, and professional respect.

2. Model of Peer Review

JMMS operates a double-blind peer review system, meaning:

• Reviewers do not know the identity of the authors.
• Authors do not know the identity of the reviewers.
• Editorial staff safeguard anonymity throughout the process.

Maintaining anonymity reduces bias related to institutional affiliation, nationality, seniority, gender, or academic reputation.

3. Scope and Eligibility for Review

All research manuscripts, review articles, case reports, and short communications undergo peer review unless rejected during initial editorial screening.

Manuscripts may be desk-rejected without external review if they:

• Fall outside the journal’s scope,
• Fail to meet minimum scientific standards,
• Lack ethical approval where required,
• Demonstrate major methodological flaws,
• Show evidence of plagiarism or ethical concerns.

Desk rejections are communicated promptly and respectfully.

4. Editorial Screening Prior to Review

Before external review, manuscripts undergo:

• Scope assessment
• Ethical compliance verification
• Similarity screening
• Basic methodological evaluation
• Formatting and anonymization check

Only manuscripts meeting baseline criteria are assigned to handling editors.

5. Reviewer Selection

5.1 Criteria for Reviewer Selection

Reviewers are selected based on:

• Subject-matter expertise,
• Publication record in relevant areas,
• Prior reviewing experience,
• Absence of conflicts of interest.

Editors aim to maintain diversity in geography, institutional background, and academic perspective.

5.2 Conflict of Interest

Reviewers must decline invitations if they:

• Have recent collaborations with authors,
• Belong to the same institution,
• Have financial or personal conflicts,
• Feel unable to provide an unbiased assessment.

Reviewers are required to declare potential conflicts before accepting assignments.

6. Number of Reviewers

• Original Research & Systematic Reviews: Minimum of two independent reviewers
• Case Reports & Short Communications: One or two reviewers depending on complexity
• Statistical Review: Assigned when methodology warrants additional scrutiny

Additional reviewers may be invited if reports conflict or lack depth.

7. Responsibilities of Reviewers

Reviewers are expected to:

• Maintain strict confidentiality,
• Provide objective and evidence-based critiques,
• Evaluate methodology, ethics, originality, and clarity,
• Suggest constructive improvements,
• Identify potential ethical concerns,
• Submit reports within agreed timelines.

Reviews must remain professional and respectful. Personal criticism or discriminatory remarks are unacceptable.

8. Review Criteria

Reviewers are asked to evaluate manuscripts on:

• Relevance to journal scope
• Novelty and contribution to knowledge
• Scientific design and methodology
• Statistical validity
• Ethical compliance
• Clarity of presentation
• Appropriateness of conclusions

Recommendations may include:

• Accept
• Minor Revision
• Major Revision
• Reject

Reviewer recommendations are advisory; final decisions rest with the editor.

9. Editorial Decision-Making

Editors assess:

• Reviewer reports collectively,
• The strength of scientific arguments,
• Consistency between data and conclusions,
• Author responses to critiques.

If reviewer opinions conflict, editors may:

• Seek additional review,
• Conduct independent evaluation,
• Consult statistical or ethics experts.

Decisions are communicated with clear reasoning and guidance.

10. Revision Process

Authors submitting revisions must provide:

• A detailed point-by-point response,
• A marked manuscript showing changes,
• Clarification where reviewer suggestions were not adopted.

Revised manuscripts may undergo re-review if substantial modifications were made.

11. Confidentiality

All submitted manuscripts are confidential documents.

Editors and reviewers must not:

• Share content externally,
• Use unpublished data for personal research,
• Discuss manuscripts publicly before publication.

Confidentiality extends beyond the review period.

12. Timelines

The journal aims to:

• Provide initial editorial screening within 1–2 weeks,
• Obtain reviewer reports within 3–4 weeks,
• Communicate decisions promptly thereafter.

Delays may occur due to reviewer availability; the editorial office will inform authors if necessary.

13. Ethical Oversight During Review

If a reviewer identifies:

• Possible plagiarism,
• Data manipulation,
• Image duplication,
• Ethical approval concerns,
• Duplicate publication,

The editor will initiate a confidential investigation following the journal’s Publication Ethics & Malpractice procedures.

14. Appeals

Authors may appeal decisions by submitting a reasoned explanation addressing specific concerns. Appeals are reviewed independently. The decision following appeal review is final.

Appeals are evaluated on procedural grounds and scientific merit, not on disagreement alone.

15. Reviewer Recognition

The journal acknowledges the valuable contribution of reviewers. Recognition mechanisms may include:

• Annual reviewer acknowledgments,
• Certificates of contribution,
• Editorial board consideration based on sustained quality reviewing.

Reviewer identities remain confidential unless explicitly agreed otherwise.

16. Ethical Standards in Peer Review

The journal adheres to international principles of peer review integrity, emphasizing:

• Transparency in process,
• Objectivity in evaluation,
• Fairness in decision-making,
• Respect for intellectual contribution,
• Protection of participant welfare.

17. Continuous Improvement

JMMS periodically evaluates:

• Reviewer performance,
• Decision consistency,
• Turnaround times,
• Quality of published work,

to ensure that the peer review system remains rigorous, efficient, and aligned with global standards.

18. Conclusion

Peer review at JMMS is a structured, impartial, and ethically grounded process intended to strengthen scientific research and protect the credibility of the scholarly record. The journal is committed to maintaining a review system that is fair, transparent, and academically robust.