Peer-review process plays vital role for scholarly publishing ensuring the quality and standard published articles. All submissions to the journal will go through peer-review process to ensure the standard fulfilling the requirement of global researchers and readers. International journal of Medical Science (IJMSCI) follow standard and transparent peer review process.

Peer review process:

The peer-review process and editorial scrutiny are the main mechanisms for ensuring the quality of published articles. To save time for author(s) and reviewer(s), Initial Screening facility is adopted by the journal editor with the help of editorial experts. Articles with insufficient general interest or otherwise inappropriate are rejected promptly without review based on informal advice from specialists in the field.

The flow chart describes complete review process from submission to the final decision.

Initial screening:

All new submissions are screened for completeness and adherence to the author guidelines. Manuscript that are rejected during initial screening will be intimated author(s) with proper reason, suggestion, and feedback. However, author(s) can modify the manuscript according to the suggestions and resubmit to the journal for consideration after four weeks from the date of initial submission. Manuscript that passes the screening will be forwarded to the handling editor who will find suitable expert who can act as reviewer to evaluate the manuscript.

Reviewer selection:

The important role of the editor is selection of suitable reviewer(s) for the submission. Sometimes, reviewer(s) selection can take longer than usual time due considering restricted availability of reviewer(s). However, editor always work to assign the reviewer in timely manner and try to receive reviewer comments in time

Reviewer guidelines:

• The key role of reviewer(s) is to provide Critical and constructive reviewer comments and suggestions to improve the standard and quality of manuscript.
• Should have profound knowledge and expertise in the field.
• Ensure fair and unbiased peer review process.
• As unpublished manuscripts are classified on our natural state, the process of review and recommendation remains confidential. The review needs to be very objective in nature and mainly to focus on improving the scientific merit of the manuscript.
• Awareness about aims and scope of the journal.
• It is important to understand that the reviewers must be in contact with the assigned editor for sensitive issues such as conflict of interest, plagiarism and published data. The manuscript having contents with recommendations and critical evaluations needs to be submitted to both the editor and the author.
• The evaluations and the comments of the reviewers plays an important role in taking the final decision upon the manuscripts in consultation with the editors on considering multiple contributing factors such that the relevance and impact of the research work.
• Reviewer(s) should assess the conceptuality, methods and materials, Results and Discussion, and conclusion to provide in-depth suggestion
• Reviewer(s) should check quality and flow of the content along with grammar and English language
• Identify the scientific merit of the manuscript for better comprehension with a wide range of readers.
• Review comments with partial criticism are strictly prohibited. It shall contain supporting references and maintain the sufficient clarity while pointing out the strength, weakness, relevance and impact of the research work as well as the originality of the presentation.
• Finally, it is necessary to mention the extent of suitability of the publication of manuscript. In addition to the authors, the editor can forward the review comments to other potential reviewers. Unpublished manuscript shall not be cited by the reviewer.

The following points represent a standard review process ensuring conformation.

1. The title & content shall be within the scope of the journal.
2. Providing relevant information for a wider network of readers within the journal preview.
3. All the sections such as title, abstract, key words, methods and conclusions within the manuscript are consistent with the objective of the paper. The included controls are rational and adequate in the experimental work.
4. Without distractions and deviations, the writing is easy to comprehend.
5. The methodology can be repeated by another researcher since it is clear and easy.
6. The methodology is appropriate and applicable when it has consent of ethical approvals. The statistical methods and analytical are appropriate which is relevant to the study.
7. The comments with suggestions can be made for expanding, considering, merging or deleting the content with regard to the length of the manuscript.

Reviewer suggestions:

Reviewers play the toughest role to evaluate a manuscript that requires lot of effort, time involvement and dedication. Finally, reviewer(s) provides feedback and suggestions to improve and make the work standardized. Mostly, reviewer(s) suggestion addresses insufficiently original, conceptual gap, methodological flaws, poor grammar or English language, and outside the aims and scope of the journal.

Revision as per review comments:

On receiving reviewer(s) comments, author(s) are requested to send the revised manuscript, and a copy for response to the reviewer(s), including the comment and explaining the replies to questions and changes made to the revised version. Communication regarding a specific manuscript will take place between the journal and the designated corresponding author only.

Review timeline:

Decisions on peer-reviewed papers are sent to the authors within an average of 4-6 weeks from the date of submission.

Final decision (Editor):

After completion of the review, editor-in-chief will take the decision based on the reviewers' suggestions and recommendation, from among several possibilities:

• Accepted with or without editorial revisions
• Invite authors to revise their manuscript to address specific concerns before a final decision is reached
• Rejected, but indicate to the authors that further work might justify a re-submission
• Rejected straight-way, typically on grounds of specialist interest, lack of novelty, insufficient conceptual advance or major technical and/or interpretation problems

Reviewers are welcome to recommend a particular course of action, but they should bear in mind that the other reviewers of a particular paper may have different technical expertise and/or views, and the editors may have to make a decision based on conflicting advice. The most useful reports, therefore, provide the editors with the information on which a decision should be based. Setting out the arguments for and against publication is often more helpful to the editors than a direct recommendation one way or the other. Editorial decisions are not a matter of counting votes or numerical rank assessments, and we do not always follow the majority recommendation. We try to evaluate the strength of the arguments raised by each reviewer and by the authors, and we may also consider other information not available to either party. Our primary responsibilities are to our readers and to the scientific community at large, and in deciding how best to serve them, we must weigh the claims of each paper against the many others also under consideration.
We may return to reviewers for further advice, particularly in cases where they disagree with each other, or where the authors believe they have been misunderstood on points of fact. We therefore ask that reviewers should be willing to provide follow-up advice as requested. We are very aware, however, that reviewers are usually reluctant to be drawn into prolonged disputes, so we try to keep consultation to the minimum we judge necessary to provide a fair hearing for the authors. When reviewers agree to assess a paper, we consider this a commitment to review subsequent revisions. However, editors will not send a resubmitted paper back to the reviewers if it seems that the authors have not made a serious attempt to address the criticisms. We take reviewers' criticisms seriously; in particular, we are very reluctant to disregard technical criticisms. In cases where one reviewer alone opposes publication, we may consult the other reviewers as to whether s/he is applying an unduly critical standard. We occasionally bring in additional reviewers to resolve disputes, but we prefer to avoid doing so unless there is a specific issue, for example a specialist technical point, on which we feel a need for further advice.

Editor’s Role:

• The editor of a journal holds a vital position taking important editorial decisions on all peer-reviewed articles submitted for publication.
• The editor should maintain the transparency of the academic research and record, preclude professional needs from cooperating with ethical standards, and always be willing to publish retractions, rectifications, and erratum when required.
• The editor should assess manuscripts for their scientific quality and intellectual content, free from any biased decisions based on discrimination of race, gender, geographical origin, or religion of the author(s). The editor should evaluate manuscripts objectively based on their academic merit and free of any commercial or self-interests.
• The editor should not disclose any information regarding submitted manuscripts before publication of the said manuscript.
• Promoting research rectitude must be preserved. If at any stage the publisher suspects any kind of misconduct in research, it should be investigated promptly and in detail with suitable authority. Furthermore, if any suspicious act is observed in the peer review, it should be resolved with diligence.

Reviewer’s Role:

• Providing a detailed, constructive, and unbiased evaluation in a timely manner on the scientific content of the work.
• Indicating whether the writing is relevant, concise, and clear and evaluating the originality as well as scientific accuracy.
• Maintaining the confidentiality of the complete review process.
• Notifying the journal editor about any financial or personal conflict of interest and declining to review the manuscript when a possibility of such a conflict exists.
• Notifying the journal editor of any ethical concerns in their evaluation of submitted manuscripts such as any violation of ethical treatment of animal and/or human subjects or any considerable similarity between a previously published article and any reviewed manuscript.

Author’s Role:

• All the work reported in the manuscript must be original and free from any kind of plagiarism.
• The work should not have been published elsewhere or submitted to any other journal(s) at the time of submission to Bentham Open.
• Any potential conflict of interest must be clearly acknowledged.
• Proper acknowledgements to other work referred/cited (of any individual, company or institution) must be given. Permission must be obtained for any content used from other sources.
• Only those who have made any substantial contribution to the interpretation or composition of the submitted work should be listed as ‘Authors’. While other contributors should be mentioned as ‘co-authors’