Back to top

Current location: Home > For authors > Instructions for authors > Peer-review process

All submitted manuscripts are reviewed initially by a journal editor. Manuscripts are evaluated according to the following criteria: material is original and timely, writing is clear, study methods are appropriate, data are valid, conclusions are reasonable and supported by the data, information is important, and topic has general medical interest. From these basic criteria, the editors assess a paper’s eligibility for publication. Other manuscripts are sent to expert consultants for peer review. The existence of a manuscript under review is not revealed to anyone other than peer reviewers and editorial staff. Peer reviewers are required to maintain confidentiality about the manuscripts they review and must not divulge any information about a specific manuscript or its content to any third party without prior permission from the journal editors. Information from submitted manuscripts may be systematically collected and analyzed as part of research to improve the quality of the editorial or peer review process. Identifying information remains confidential. Final decisions regarding manuscript publication are made within the Editorial Team.

Specifically, the peer review goes as:

1. Editor assessment

At this first stage, the journal editor will make sure:

  ·  Submitted articles are suitable for the journal and its readers

  ·  This is the right journal for this article

  ·  The journal’s readers find it interesting and useful

  ·  The editor might reject the article immediately, but otherwise it will move to the next stage,
     and into peer review.

2. The editor will find and contact two or three other researchers or academics who are experts in your field. They will be asked to read your article, and advise the editor whether to publish your paper in the journal. They will check:

  ·  your work is original or new;

  ·  your study design and methodology are appropriate and described so that others could
     replicate what you’ve done;

  ·  you’ve presented your results clearly and appropriately;

  ·  your conclusions are reliable and significant;

  ·  the work is of a high enough standard to be published in the journal.