Review Process
Review Process
The review process at the Journal of Advanced Research in Medical and Health Science (JARMHS) is meticulously designed to uphold the quality, integrity, and timeliness of published research. Adhering to COPE (Committee on Publication Ethics) recommendations, our process ensures high ethical standards and transparency. Below is a detailed explanation of our review process:
- Submission and Initial Checks
Step 1: Submission
- Authors submit their manuscript through the journal’s online submission system.
- The system ensures all required files and information are provided.
Step 2: Initial Checks by Editorial Office
- The editorial office conducts an initial screening to verify the manuscript’s alignment with the journal’s scope and adherence to submission guidelines.
- Manuscripts undergo checks for completeness, formatting, and ethical standards compliance, including plagiarism detection using specialized software.
Step 3: Editor Assignment
- An Editor-in-Chief or Associate Editor is assigned based on the manuscript’s topic and the editor’s expertise.
- Peer Review Process
Step 4: Reviewer Selection
- The assigned editor selects at least two reviewers with relevant expertise in the manuscript’s subject area.
- Reviewers receive the abstract and necessary details to conduct an informed review.
Step 5: Reviewers Accept Invitation
- Reviewers accept or decline the review invitation within one week.
- In case of decline, the editor invites additional reviewers to prevent delays.
Step 6: Double-Blind Peer Review
- Reviewers conduct a double-blind review, where both the identities of authors and reviewers are concealed.
- Evaluation criteria include originality, significance, methodological rigor, ethical standards, clarity, and relevance.
- Reviewers provide detailed feedback and recommend one of the following decisions:
- Accept
- Minor Revisions
- Major Revisions
- Reject
Step 7: Reviewers Submit Reports
- Reviewers submit their reports within four weeks via the online system.
- Reports include specific comments for authors and confidential remarks for the editor.
- Editorial Decision and Revisions
Step 8: Editor’s Decision
- The editor reviews the reviewers’ reports and makes an initial decision on the manuscript.
- Decisions may include acceptance, minor or major revisions, or rejection.
- If revisions are necessary, the editor consolidates feedback for authors.
Step 9: Author Revisions
- Authors receive the decision and reviewers’ feedback.
- Authors revise the manuscript accordingly and resubmit it for further review.
Step 10: Revised Manuscript Review
- The revised manuscript undergoes review by the original reviewers or new reviewers if needed.
- Reviewers evaluate revisions to ensure all concerns are addressed.
- Final Decision and Publication
Step 11: Final Decision
- Based on reviewers’ feedback on the revised manuscript, the editor makes a final decision.
- The decision is either acceptance or rejection.
Step 12: Acceptance and Proofreading
- Accepted manuscripts undergo final proofreading and typesetting.
- Authors review proofs for any final corrections.
Step 13: Publication
- The final version of the manuscript is published online under a CC BY 4.0 license, ensuring open access to the research.
COPE Recommendations
JARMHS adheres to COPE guidelines to uphold ethical and transparent review processes:
- Integrity and Confidentiality: Maintain confidentiality of manuscripts and the review process, and avoid conflicts of interest.
- Transparency: Provide clear and constructive feedback to authors, base decisions on research quality and integrity, and treat all submissions fairly.
- Ethical Standards: Adhere to ethical guidelines in research and publication, including addressing misconduct allegations promptly.
By following these guidelines and COPE recommendations, JARMHS ensures a rigorous, fair, and transparent review process that upholds the highest standards of academic publishing.