Peer Review Policy

Peer Review Policy

Every manuscript is screened by an editor for scope, basic quality, originality, reporting completeness, ethical compliance, and conflicts of interest. A manuscript may be declined at this stage when it clearly falls outside the journal’s remit or fails minimum standards.

Reviewer Selection and Evaluation

Reviewers are selected for relevant expertise, independence, availability, and the absence of disqualifying conflicts. They assess originality, methods, analysis, ethical compliance, reporting quality, interpretation, references, and relevance. Case reports require consent and CARE compliance; systematic reviews and meta-analyses require PRISMA-oriented assessment.

Confidentiality and Conflicts

Manuscripts and reports are confidential. Reviewers must disclose conflicts before accepting and must not use manuscript information for personal advantage or upload it to unauthorized AI systems. Editors with conflicts are recused and a non-conflicted editor manages the submission.

Decision, Revision, and Appeal

The editor considers the reviewers’ evidence and may decide accept, minor revision, major revision, or reject. Authors receive relevant reports and must respond point by point. Revised manuscripts may be returned to reviewers. Appeals must identify a substantive procedural or scientific concern and are considered by an editor not solely responsible for the original decision when practicable.

Typical reviewer completion time is two weeks, but complex submissions may require additional time. Editorial decisions remain the responsibility of the journal.