IJRMST follows Double blind peer-review
International Journal of Research in Medical Sciences & Technology strive to ensure that peer review is fair, unbiased and timely. Decisions to approve or reject a manuscript for publication are based on the importance, originality and consistency of the manuscript, and the validity of the research and its relation to the journal's responsibilities. In order to classify potential reviewers, we use a wide variety of sources, including the editorial board, personal information, feedback from the author, and bibliographic databases. In our decision as to whether to approve a manuscript for publication, reviewers' reviews play a major role.
Selection of Reviewers
Reviewers are selected on the basis of a variety of criteria, including experience, previous publications in the same subject field, and prior review results (including quality and timeliness). Review invitations may contain sensitive information that should be treated as such.
Initial manuscript evaluation:
For completeness and adherence to the Guide for Writers, all new submissions are screened. Normally, authors of papers rejected at this point will be notified within 3-5 days.
Associate Editor evaluation:
The Associate Editor will determine whether it warrants peer review or if it should be rejected without review when assigned a new submission. Manuscripts rejected at this point are insufficiently original, have significant conceptual and/or methodological defects, have weak grammar or English language, or are beyond the aims and scope of the journal. Authors of manuscripts rejected at this stage will normally be informed within 5-10 days.
Those manuscripts deemed suitable for peer review are passed to at least 2 expert referees for review.
Reviewers are selected for the paper according to their expertise and our referee database is constantly being updated.
Reviewers are asked to evaluate a manuscript for:
Originality and significance of contribution, interest to scholars, scientists and/or practitioners, relevance, coverage of appropriate existing literature, adequacy of methodology, analysis and interpretation, clear, concise and jargon-free writing style. Reviewers are asked to provide anonymous comments to the author and are also given the option of providing confidential comments to the editor. Typically the manuscript will be reviewed within 5-20 days.
The final decision and time to publication:
The Associate Editor is responsible for the decision to reject or recommend the manuscript for publication. This decision will be sent to the author along with any recommendations made by the referees. After acceptance, it currently takes up to 5 days to publish article online.
Because we are committed to provide timely editorial decisions, potential reviewers are requested to respond promptly and those who accept invitations to review are requested to provide their comments within the agreed timeframe. If reviewers anticipate that they will not be able to meet the deadline, they are requested to inform the assigning editor so that alternative arrangements can be made.
Potential Conflicts of Interest
If a reviewer perceives that there may be a significant conflict of interest (financial or otherwise) for a particular manuscript that they are invited to review, they should either seek clarification with the assigning editor or decline the invitation.
Manuscripts are reviewed with due respect for authors’ and reviewers’ confidentiality. As a condition of agreeing to assess the manuscript, all reviewers undertake to keep submitted manuscripts and associated data confidential. If a reviewer seeks advice from colleagues while assessing a manuscript, he or she ensures that confidentiality is maintained and that the names of any such colleagues are provided to the journal with the final report.
We do not transfer on the identities of reviewers to authors. We strongly discourage reviewers from disclosing their identity as they may be asked to comment on other reviewers' critiques and on further manuscript revisions; it may be more difficult for identified reviewers to be impartial in such circumstances.