Peer Review Process

The Indo Eurasian Journal of Medical Sciences (IEJMS) is committed to publishing high-quality, ethically sound and methodologically rigorous medical research. To achieve this, the journal employs a strict double-blind peer review process.

This page details the lifecycle of a manuscript from submission to final decision, ensuring complete transparency for authors and readers in accordance with the guidelines set by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE).

1. Initial editorial screening (triage)

Upon submission through the Editorial Manager portal, every manuscript undergoes a rigorous initial screening by the Managing Editor and the Editor-in-Chief. This stage typically takes 3 to 5 business days.

Manuscripts are evaluated against the following criteria:

• Scope and clinical relevance. Does the manuscript fit the Aims and Scope of IEJMS?
• Originality and similarity. All submissions are screened using plagiarism-detection software. Manuscripts with unacceptable levels of similarity or evidence of text recycling are immediately rejected.
• Methodological and ethical compliance. Does the manuscript adhere to the required EQUATOR Network reporting guidelines? Are ethical approvals, informed consent and clinical trial registrations explicitly stated?
• Format and blinding. Is the manuscript properly formatted and completely anonymised for double-blind review?

Manuscripts that fail this initial screening are rejected without external review, or returned to the authors for technical corrections.

2. Double-blind peer review

If a manuscript passes the initial screening, it is assigned to a handling editor — either the Editor-in-Chief or an Associate Editor with relevant clinical expertise.

IEJMS uses a double-blind review model. This means:

• The reviewers do not know the identities or affiliations of the authors.
• The authors do not know the identities of the reviewers.

The handling editor invites a minimum of two independent, external experts in the specific subject area to evaluate the manuscript. Reviewers are selected based on their publication record, clinical expertise and absence of any conflict of interest.

3. Reviewer evaluation

Reviewers are given exactly 21 days to provide a detailed, constructive assessment. Reviewers evaluate the manuscript on multiple fronts:

• Scientific rigour. Soundness of the study design, validity of the statistical analysis, and reproducibility of the methods.
• Originality and significance. The study's contribution to the existing medical literature and its potential impact on clinical practice or public health.
• Ethical standards. Verification that the study protects human subjects and animal welfare according to international declarations.
• Clarity and data integrity. Accurate presentation of results, clear and logical discussion, and appropriate use of tables and figures without data manipulation.

4. Editorial decision

Once the independent review reports are received, the handling editor synthesises the feedback and makes a recommendation to the Editor-in-Chief, who makes the final decision.

Decisions are based strictly on scientific merit, clinical validity and reviewer feedback. As a Diamond Open Access journal, IEJMS does not charge article processing charges; editorial decisions are therefore entirely independent of financial considerations.

Authors receive one of the following decisions, accompanied by the reviewers' detailed comments:

Decision	What it means	Time to resubmit
Accept in current form	The manuscript is scientifically sound and formatting is correct. It is ready for publication.	—
Minor revision	Small adjustments required: clarifying specific methodological details, adjusting text for clarity, or adding missing references.	14 days
Major revision	The study has merit but requires significant work: re-analysing data, restructuring the discussion, or addressing major methodological queries. Revised manuscripts are usually returned to the original reviewers for a second round.	28 days
Reject	The manuscript is fundamentally flawed, lacks clinical originality, violates ethical standards, or falls outside the journal's scope.	—

5. Submitting a revision

When submitting a revised manuscript, authors must provide:

1. A clean version of the revised manuscript.
2. A tracked-changes version highlighting all modifications.
3. A point-by-point response letter addressing every comment made by the reviewers and the editor, explaining exactly how and where the manuscript was altered, or providing a scientific justification for why a specific change was not made.

6. Appeals process

Authors have the right to appeal a rejection decision if they believe it was based on a fundamental misunderstanding of the scientific content.

• Appeals must be submitted in writing to the Editor-in-Chief within 30 days of the decision letter.
• The appeal must provide detailed, scientifically backed arguments against the reviewers' specific criticisms.
• Appeals based solely on a desire to publish, or on disagreement over the perceived importance of the work, will not be considered.
• The Editor-in-Chief may uphold the original decision or assign the manuscript to a new, independent adjudicating reviewer. The result of the appeal is final.