Peer Review Policy

The International Journal Studies of Advance Medical Science (IJSAMS) follows a Double-Blind Peer Review process to ensure the publication of high-quality, original, and scientifically sound research. In this process, the identities of both the authors and reviewers remain confidential throughout the review process.

Initial Editorial Screening

All submitted manuscripts undergo an initial evaluation by the Editor-in-Chief or an assigned Editor to determine whether the manuscript:

  • Falls within the journal's scope.
  • Complies with the journal's submission guidelines.
  • Meets basic scientific and ethical standards.
  • Passes the plagiarism screening.

Manuscripts that do not meet these requirements may be rejected without external peer review.

Peer Review Process

Suitable manuscripts are assigned to at least two independent expert reviewers with relevant subject expertise. Reviewers evaluate the manuscript based on:

  • Originality and novelty
  • Scientific quality and methodology
  • Clinical and academic significance
  • Data analysis and interpretation
  • Ethical compliance
  • Clarity of presentation
  • Quality of references
  • Overall suitability for publication

Editorial Decision

Based on the reviewers' comments and recommendations, the Editor may make one of the following decisions:

  • Accept
  • Minor Revision
  • Major Revision
  • Reject

The Editor-in-Chief has the final authority regarding all editorial decisions.

Review Timeline

The journal aims to complete the peer review process within 2 weeks from the date the manuscript is sent for review. However, the review period may vary depending on reviewer availability and the complexity of the manuscript.

Reviewer Responsibilities

Reviewers are expected to:

  • Provide objective, constructive, and unbiased evaluations.
  • Maintain the confidentiality of all submitted manuscripts.
  • Declare any conflicts of interest before accepting a review assignment.
  • Complete reviews within the requested timeframe.
  • Report any suspected plagiarism, duplicate publication, ethical concerns, or research misconduct.

Author Revisions

Authors receiving revision requests should submit a revised manuscript along with a point-by-point response to the reviewers' comments within the specified deadline. Revised manuscripts may be returned to the original reviewers for further evaluation when necessary.

Confidentiality

All manuscripts, reviewer comments, editorial correspondence, and related documents are treated as confidential. Reviewers and editors must not disclose, distribute, or use unpublished information for personal or professional advantage.

Conflict of Interest

Editors and reviewers who have any financial, academic, institutional, or personal conflict of interest with a submitted manuscript must disclose the conflict and recuse themselves from the review or editorial decision-making process.

Appeals

Authors who believe that an editorial decision was based on a factual or procedural error may submit a written appeal to the Editor-in-Chief. Appeals will be reviewed independently, and the Editor-in-Chief's decision after the appeal process shall be final.