Peer-Review Process
The peer-review process and editorial scrutiny are the
main mechanisms for ensuring the quality of published
articles. To this end, the submitted articles are
rigorously peer-reviewed to ensure the high quality
submissions are accepted and published; these published
articles reflect the up-to-date research findings, with
reliable and sound results, objective and unbiased
discussion of the results. The journal’s editorial board
consists of research scientists and medical specialists
with rich research and publication experiences.
1) Manuscript submitted via the journal online
submission system, then a manuscript No. is
assigned.
2) Primary manuscript check by the
editorial assistant against the submission Checklist, to
check if components of manuscript are complete and
conforming to the submission requirements, whether there
is issue of duplicate submission, plagiarism, and other
concerns. If manuscript does not meet the submission
requirements, the manuscript will be returned to the
authors for corrections and resubmission, or even
rejected for ethical violation concerns.
3) When
the submitted manuscript is complete, it will be
reviewed first by the Editor-in-Chief for novelty,
scientific importance, and relevance to the journal’s
general readership.
4) If the manuscript is
found lacking sufficient quality or the topic is not
well within the journal scope, or is very poorly
written, lack of suitable English language correctness
and readability, without sufficient research creative
novelty, or any other serious ethical issues, the
manuscript will be rejected outright promptly without
further consideration and review (a “desk
reject”).
5) Manuscript that passes the initial
screening will be sent to and reviewed by peer
reviewers.
6) Each manuscript is reviewed by at
least two external expert reviewers who will provide
unbiased, critical and independent assessment of the
submission; Reviewers are asked to complete the review
within the assigned time (usually 2 weeks). The peer
reviewers’ comments will be sent to the Editor-in-Chief,
who will decide whether to accept with/without revision,
or reject the submission. The corresponding/submitting
author is notified of the editorial decision.
7)
Manuscripts which are returned to the authors for minor
or major revisions should be resubmitted within assigned
deadline. If necessary, the revised manuscripts are
reassessed by the same reviewers to determine if the
authors have satisfactorily addressed their criticisms
and comments. Depending upon the reevaluation, the
Editor-in-Chief will make the final decision.
8)
The above review process may be repeated (one or more
times) if a manuscript revision (major or minor) is
requested.
9) The peer-review process is single
blinded with the reviewers aware of whom the authors of
the manuscript are, the authors do not know who the
reviewers are.
10) All manuscripts are treated
by the editorial staff, editors and assigned reviewers
as privileged and confidential information. Reviewers’
comments are not published. The reviewers’ identity
remains anonymous. The manuscripts under review are not
revealed to anyone other than the peer reviewers and
editorial staff.
Reviewer Conflict of Interest
Conflict of interest (COI) self-assessment must be
performed by members of the editorial team and external
peer reviewers involved in the assessment of
manuscripts. Common examples of COI include situations
where there is financial gain, or when authors who are
collaborating, directly competing, or are members of the
same institution are reviewing each other’s work. To
some extent, especially within highly subspecialized
fields, some degree of conflict of interest may be
difficult to avoid. Editors and reviewers will be asked
to provide a COI statement when reviewing articles
addressing the following questions:
1. Is there
any financial gain that may result from your review of
this work? (Yes or No)
2. Currently or in the
last 2 years, is there an existing relationship with any
of the manuscript authors such as shared grant support,
shared publications, or collaborative projects? (Yes or
No)
3. Currently or in the last 2 years, do you
share institutional or other affiliations with any of
the authors that may affect your judgement of this work?
(Yes or No)
4. Do you have (currently or in the
past) a personal or family relationship with any of the
authors that may result in a conflict or a perceived
conflict of interest? (Yes or No)
If the answer
to any of these statements is “Yes” the editor or
reviewer should recuse themselves from the review of the
manuscript and the article will be assigned to a
different editor or reviewer.
Submissions from Members of the Editorial Board
Members of the editorial board are permitted to submit articles for consideration by the journal. In order to minimize the possibility of COI, the managing editor for the submission will be a member of the editorial board who is from a different institution. The editor submitting the article will not be included in editorial discussions, the peer review process, or decisions regarding the manuscript. For purposes of the submission, they will receive the same treatment as any other author who submits work to the journal.
Similarly, article submissions from the editor in chief
will be handled by a member of the editorial board from
a different institution, who will oversee the editorial
process and peer review. The editor in chief will not be
permitted to participate in the editorial process and
final decision regarding the manuscript will be made by
the managing editor.
As above, determining the
editorial team members and peer reviewers who are best
positioned to assess the manuscript, will be guided by
the above-mentioned COI self-assessment.
The quality of published articles is ensured through the peer-review process and editorial scrutiny. This involves rigorous peer-review of submitted articles to ensure that only high-quality submissions are accepted and published. Published articles should reflect up-to-date research findings, with reliable and sound results, as well as an objective and unbiased discussion of the results. The journal's editorial board comprises research scientists and medical specialists with rich research and publication experiences.
Ethical Research Guidelines
Maintaining ethical standards in research ensures the integrity, reliability, and transparency of scientific publications, requiring strict adherence to guidelines for human and animal studies, informed consent, conflict disclosure, and data availability. Editors, reviewers, and publishers all play critical roles in safeguarding fairness, confidentiality, and unbiased evaluation, while also handling misconduct, corrections, and retractions in line with COPE and ICMJE standards. Similarly, individuals benefit from practical guidance in everyday health decisions, such as learning how to get tretinoin cream affordably, by relying on accurate and trustworthy resources.