Peer Review Policy

The Journal of Medical & Health Sciences Review (JMHSR) follows a rigorous double-blind peer-review process to ensure the quality, originality, integrity, and scientific validity of all research published in the journal.

Under the double-blind review system, the identities of both authors and reviewers remain confidential throughout the review process.

1. Initial Editorial Screening

All submitted manuscripts are first reviewed by the editorial team to assess their relevance to the journal’s aims and scope, originality, scientific quality, ethical compliance, formatting, and overall suitability for peer review. Manuscripts that do not meet the journal’s basic requirements may be rejected before external review.

2. Independent Peer Review

Manuscripts that pass the initial screening are normally sent to at least two independent reviewers with expertise relevant to the subject area of the submission. Reviewers evaluate the manuscript on the basis of originality, methodology, scientific validity, clarity, significance, ethical compliance, interpretation of results, and contribution to medical and health sciences.

3. Reviewer Selection

Reviewers are selected based on their academic qualifications, research experience, subject expertise, and ability to provide an objective assessment. Reviewers should not have any relationship with the authors or the submitted research that may create a conflict of interest.

4. Confidentiality

All manuscripts and review reports are treated as confidential documents. Reviewers must not disclose, share, reproduce, or use information obtained through the peer-review process for personal or professional advantage.

5. Impartiality and Conflict of Interest

Reviewers are required to conduct evaluations objectively and without discrimination or personal bias. Any financial, institutional, professional, personal, or other conflict of interest must be disclosed to the editor. Reviewers with a relevant conflict will not participate in the review process.

6. Review Timeline

Reviewers are normally requested to submit their reports within two to four weeks. The journal makes reasonable efforts to ensure an efficient review process while maintaining the quality and integrity of academic evaluation.

7. Editorial Decision

After considering the reviewers’ reports, the editor may make one of the following decisions:

  • Accept

  • Accept with minor revisions

  • Major revisions required

  • Reject

The final decision regarding publication rests with the Editor-in-Chief or the responsible editor and is based on the scientific quality of the manuscript, reviewer recommendations, ethical compliance, and relevance to the journal.

8. Revision Process

Authors receiving revision requests must respond carefully to reviewers’ comments and submit a revised manuscript together with a point-by-point response. Revised manuscripts may be returned to the original reviewers for further evaluation where necessary.

9. Reviewer Conduct

Reviewers are expected to provide clear, constructive, respectful, and evidence-based comments. Personal criticism, inappropriate language, discriminatory remarks, or unsupported recommendations are not acceptable.

10. Editorial Independence

Editorial decisions are made independently and are not influenced by author fees, institutional affiliations, commercial interests, advertising, sponsorship, or other financial considerations.

11. Appeals

Authors may appeal an editorial decision by submitting a reasoned and evidence-based request to the journal. Appeals are reviewed independently and do not guarantee reconsideration or acceptance.

12. Peer Review Integrity

JMHSR is committed to protecting the integrity of the peer-review process. Any evidence of fabricated reviews, manipulated reviewer identities, undisclosed conflicts of interest, or other forms of peer-review misconduct may result in rejection, retraction, or further investigation.