Manuscript Review

Editorial Procedures and Peer Review

  • International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) guidelines/recommendations are followed for editorial procedure and peer review.

    • All submitted manuscripts received by the Editorial Office are checked by Editor/Subject Specialists to determine whether they are properly prepared and whether they follow the ethical policies of the journal.
      Manuscripts that do not fit the journal's ethics policy or do not meet the standards of the journal including plagriasm policy are rejected before peer-review.
    • Manuscripts that are not properly prepared are returned to the authors for revision and resubmission.
    • After these checks, the Editor/Associate Editor in consultation with Chief editor/Editor/Associate Editors/Guest Editor/Editorial Board member determine whether the manuscript fits the scope of the journal and whether it is scientifically sound. No judgment on the significance or potential impact of the work is made at this stage. Reject decisions at this stage are verified by the Editor-in-Chief.
    • If the manuscript is considered to comply with aims and scope of JRMC at this stage it is sent for double blind peer review. Removal of names and affiliations from manuscript are done by Editorial Office.
    • As the Reviewers comments are received these and Editorial comments if any are sent to Authors who should revise the manuscript in line with the reviewers’ and/or editor’s comments/suggestions within 4 weeks.
    • Depending on the results of review process and wherever required modifications by Authors, Chief Editor/Editor decide regarding acceptance, rejection, and modification of the manuscript.
    • Editorial team determines the journal issue in which it will appear. Accepted articles usually appear in the next issue of the journal. Authors are informed

    Section A: Duties of Author

    • As part of the submission process, Authors are required to check off their submission's compliance with all of the following items, and submissions may be returned to authors that do not adhere to these guidelines.
    • The submission has not been previously published, nor is it before another journal for consideration.
    • The submission file is in Microsoft Word document file format.
    • Where available, URLs for the references have been provided.
    • Manuscripts should be written as per instructions provided in Authors Guidelines section and accompanied by a covering letter stating the originality and significance of the submitted manuscripts.
    • The text adheres to the stylistic and bibliographic requirements outlined in the Author Guidelines section.
    • Numbers of Authors: Authorship should be limited to those who have made a significant contribution to conception, design, execution or interpretation of the reported study. A certificate in this regard duly signed by all authors should be submitted.
    • If at any point of time, the author(s)discovers a significant error in submitted manuscript, then the error or inaccuracy must be reported to the editor.
    • The authors should ensure that they have written entirely original works, and if the authors have used the work and/or words of others that this has been appropriately cited or quoted.
    • The corresponding author should ensure that all appropriate co-authors and no inappropriate co-authors are included on the paper, and that all co-authors have seen and approved the final version of the paper and have agreed to its submission for publication.
    • Proper acknowledgment of the work of others must always be given. Authors should cite publications that have been influential in determining the nature of the reported work.
    • If the work involves chemicals, procedures or equipment that have any unusual hazards inherent in their use, the author must clearly identify these in the manuscript.

    Section B: Reviewers' responsibilities

    • Reviewers should keep all information regarding papers confidential and treat them as privileged information. 
    • Reviews should be conducted objectively, with no personal criticism of the author.
    • Reviewers should express their views clearly with supporting arguments.
    • Reviewers should identify relevant published work that has not been cited by the authors.
    • Reviewers should also call to the Editor in Chief's attention to any substantial similarity or overlap between the manuscript under consideration and any other published paper of which they have personal knowledge.
    • Reviewers should not review manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies, or institutions connected to the papers.

    Section C: Editorial Staff’s responsibilities

    • The editor is responsible for deciding which of the articles submitted to the journal should be published.
    • Unpublished materials disclosed in a submitted manuscript must not be used in an editor's own research without the express written consent of the author.
    • An editor at any time evaluates manuscripts for their intellectual content without regard to race, gender, sexual orientation, religious belief, ethnic origin, citizenship, or political philosophy of the authors.
    • The editor and any editorial staff must not disclose any information about a submitted manuscript to anyone other than the corresponding author, reviewers, potential reviewers, other editorial advisers, and the publisher, as appropriate.

      Disclosure and conflicts of interest- Unpublished materials disclosed in a submitted manuscript must not be used in an editor's own research without the express written consent of the author.

    GUIDE TO REVIEWERS

    • JRMC Editorial Team value reviewers’ recommendations and our systems are designed to make reviews easier for them to accept articles for review, complete their reviews and provide rapid feedback.
    • Please use the Reviewers Comments template for your review.
      Confidentiality is very important in all aspects of the reviewing cycle; we expect the highest standards of professional behavior from all our reviewers. Author data must be kept securely until discarded by electronic shredding.
    • It is essential that all reviewers declare any conflicts of or completing interests.