International Journal of Medical Science and Clinical Invention (IJMSCI)

The International Journal of Medical Science and Clinical Invention (IJMSCI) follows a structured, independent, and transparent peer-review process to evaluate the scientific quality, originality, methodological soundness, ethical integrity, and relevance of submitted manuscripts.

The journal is committed to maintaining a fair, confidential, and unbiased peer-review system. Peer review is conducted by qualified experts who are independent of the editorial decision-making process whenever possible.

The Editor-in-Chief and designated editors retain ultimate responsibility for all editorial decisions.

1. Initial Editorial Assessment

All manuscripts submitted to IJMSCI undergo an initial editorial assessment before external peer review.

During this stage, the editorial team evaluates:

• Whether the manuscript falls within the scope of the journal;

• Whether the manuscript meets the basic submission requirements;

• The originality and potential scientific contribution of the work;

• The overall quality of the methodology and reporting;

• Compliance with applicable research ethics requirements;

• Ethical approval and informed consent, where applicable;

• Potential plagiarism or inappropriate text similarity;

• Potential conflicts of interest;

• Compliance with the journal's publication ethics requirements.

A manuscript may be rejected without external peer review if it is outside the scope of the journal, does not meet the minimum scientific or ethical standards, contains serious methodological weaknesses, or does not comply with the journal's submission requirements.

A rejection at the initial assessment stage does not necessarily indicate that the research is invalid; it may reflect the manuscript's suitability for the journal.

2. Type of Peer Review

IJMSCI normally uses a double-anonymous peer-review process.

Under this process:

• The identities of the authors are not disclosed to the reviewers;

• The identities of the reviewers are not disclosed to the authors;

• Reviewers are expected to make independent and objective assessments;

• Editors take reasonable steps to minimize potential bias during the review process.

In certain circumstances, the journal may use an alternative peer-review arrangement when appropriate for the manuscript or editorial process. Any such process will be managed to preserve fairness, confidentiality, and editorial independence.

3. Selection of Peer Reviewers

Reviewers are selected based on their:

• Subject expertise;

• Relevant research experience;

• Academic and professional qualifications;

• Publication experience;

• Methodological expertise, where relevant;

• Independence from the authors.

The journal may consider reviewer recommendations provided by authors; however, the final selection of reviewers remains the responsibility of the editor.

Authors must not recommend reviewers who have a personal, professional, institutional, financial, or other relationship that could compromise the independence of the review.

The journal may use reviewers from different institutions and geographical regions to support independent scholarly assessment.

4. Number of Reviewers

Where external peer review is required, manuscripts are normally evaluated by at least two independent reviewers.

The Editor-in-Chief or handling editor may seek additional reviewers when:

• Reviewer recommendations substantially differ;

• Additional specialist expertise is required;

• Ethical or methodological concerns require further assessment;

• A reviewer is unable to complete the review;

• The editor considers an additional independent opinion necessary.

The number of reviewers may vary according to the article type and the specific circumstances of the manuscript.

5. Reviewer Evaluation

Reviewers are asked to evaluate manuscripts objectively and constructively.

The review may consider:

Scientific Quality

• Originality and significance of the research;

• Clarity of the research question or objectives;

• Appropriateness of the study design;

• Adequacy of the methodology;

• Accuracy and reliability of the data;

• Appropriateness of statistical analysis, where applicable;

• Validity of the results and conclusions.

Ethical and Reporting Standards

• Ethical approval for research involving human participants or animals;

• Informed consent, where applicable;

• Clinical trial registration, where applicable;

• Appropriate reporting of limitations;

• Transparency of funding and conflicts of interest;

• Compliance with relevant reporting standards.

Presentation

• Organization and clarity of the manuscript;

• Accuracy and relevance of references;

• Quality of tables, figures, and supplementary material;

• Clarity of the language and scientific presentation.

Reviewers should provide clear, professional, evidence-based, and constructive comments.

6. Reviewer Recommendations

Reviewers may provide one of the following recommendations:

• Accept;

• Minor revision;

• Major revision;

• Reject and resubmit;

• Reject.

Reviewer recommendations are advisory. The final decision is made by the Editor-in-Chief or the designated handling editor.

The editor is not required to follow a reviewer's recommendation and may make an independent editorial decision based on the overall evidence, quality, suitability, and ethical integrity of the manuscript.

7. Editorial Decision

Following peer review, the editor evaluates:

• The reviewers' comments;

• The scientific quality of the manuscript;

• The relevance of the manuscript to the journal;

• The methodological and ethical integrity of the work;

• The authors' responses to reviewer comments, where applicable.

The possible editorial decisions are:

Accept

The manuscript is accepted for publication without further substantive changes, subject to final editorial and production checks.

Minor Revision

The manuscript requires limited changes before a final decision can be made.

Major Revision

The manuscript requires substantial changes. A revised manuscript may be returned to the original reviewers for further evaluation.

Reject and Resubmit

The manuscript requires substantial redevelopment and may be considered as a new submission if the authors substantially revise the work.

Reject

The manuscript is not suitable for publication in the journal.

8. Revision and Resubmission

When revisions are requested, authors should submit:

1. A revised version of the manuscript; and

2. A detailed response to the reviewers' comments.

The response should clearly explain:

• How each comment was addressed;

• Where changes were made in the manuscript;

• The reason when a suggested change was not adopted.

Revised manuscripts may be returned to the original reviewers or evaluated by the editor, depending on the extent of the revisions.

The editor may request more than one round of revision when necessary to ensure the scientific and ethical quality of the manuscript.

9. Reviewer Conflicts of Interest

Reviewers must disclose any relationship or activity that could influence, or could reasonably be perceived to influence, their evaluation of a manuscript.

Reviewers should decline an invitation when they:

• Have a personal or professional relationship with the authors;

• Have a direct financial or competitive interest in the research;

• Have recently collaborated with one or more authors;

• Have a strong personal or professional interest that may affect objectivity;

• Cannot provide an independent and impartial assessment.

The journal may replace a reviewer when a conflict of interest is identified.

10. Confidentiality

Manuscripts submitted to IJMSCI are confidential documents.

Reviewers must not:

• Share the manuscript with unauthorized individuals;

• Discuss the manuscript publicly;

• Use unpublished information for personal or professional advantage;

• Copy or retain the manuscript for personal use;

• Disclose the identity of the authors or other reviewers.

Reviewers must not upload confidential manuscripts or unpublished manuscript content to external artificial intelligence systems or other third-party services where confidentiality cannot be assured.

Editors and editorial staff are also required to maintain the confidentiality of submitted manuscripts and peer-review materials.

11. Use of Artificial Intelligence in Peer Review

Reviewers must not use generative artificial intelligence tools to evaluate or process confidential manuscripts unless the journal has expressly authorized such use and confidentiality can be assured.

Reviewers remain responsible for the confidentiality, accuracy, and integrity of their review reports.

AI tools must not replace the independent scholarly judgment of the reviewer.

12. Editorial Independence

Editorial decisions are based on the scientific quality, originality, methodological soundness, ethical integrity, and relevance of the manuscript.

Editorial decisions must not be influenced by:

• Commercial interests;

• Advertising;

• Sponsorship;

• Author nationality;

• Institutional affiliation;

• Personal relationships;

• Political or ideological considerations;

• Financial interests.

The Editor-in-Chief and designated editors retain responsibility for the final decision regarding publication.

13. Timeliness of Peer Review

IJMSCI aims to process manuscripts in a timely manner while maintaining the quality and integrity of peer review.

Reviewers are requested to complete their assessments within the agreed timeframe.

If a reviewer is unable to complete a review within the required period, the journal may:

• Extend the review deadline;

• Invite an alternative reviewer;

• Proceed with the available reviews when sufficient independent assessment has been obtained.

Authors may contact the editorial office regarding the status of their manuscript through the journal's official communication channels.

14. Appeals

Authors may appeal an editorial decision when they believe that:

• A significant factual error affected the decision;

• The manuscript was evaluated using a serious procedural error;

• A major misunderstanding occurred during the review process;

• There is evidence of inappropriate bias or a relevant undisclosed conflict of interest.

An appeal must provide clear and specific reasons and should directly address the editorial or peer-review concerns.

Appeals are reviewed by the Editor-in-Chief or another appropriate independent editor where necessary.

The decision following an appeal may be final.

15. Post-Publication Peer Review and Scholarly Discussion

Peer review does not end at publication.

IJMSCI welcomes responsible scholarly discussion regarding published articles.

Readers may submit comments, questions, or concerns regarding published research through the journal's official communication channels.

Substantive concerns may be investigated by the editorial team and may result in:

• A correction;

• An Expression of Concern;

• Retraction;

• Other appropriate editorial action.

Authors are expected to cooperate with reasonable requests for clarification, supporting information, or data when concerns arise regarding their published work.

16. Reviewer Recognition

The journal acknowledges the important contribution of peer reviewers to the quality and integrity of scholarly publishing.

The journal may provide appropriate recognition of reviewer contributions while maintaining reviewer confidentiality.

Reviewer identities will not be disclosed to authors or third parties without the reviewer's permission, unless the journal's stated peer-review model provides otherwise.

17. Editorial Record Keeping

The journal maintains appropriate editorial records relating to the peer-review process, including, where applicable:

• Manuscript submission information;

• Editorial decisions;

• Reviewer invitations;

• Reviewer reports;

• Author responses;

• Revised manuscripts;

• Editorial correspondence.

These records may be retained to support the integrity, transparency, and accountability of the editorial process and to address future questions concerning published work.

18. Commitment to Fair and Ethical Peer Review

IJMSCI is committed to conducting peer review in a manner that is:

• Independent;

• Fair;

• Confidential;

• Constructive;

• Timely;

• Transparent;

• Free from discrimination and improper influence.

The journal may update this Peer Review Process to reflect developments in medical publishing, research integrity, and international best practices.

International Journal of Medical Science and Clinical Invention (IJMSCI)