Peer Review Policy
The International Journal of Surgical and Medical Research (IJSMR) is committed to maintaining the highest standards of scholarly publishing through a rigorous, transparent, and independent peer review process. All manuscripts submitted to the journal undergo a Double-Blind Peer Review system in which the identities of both authors and reviewers remain confidential throughout the evaluation process. Prior to external review, all identifying information, including author names, affiliations, and institutional details, is removed from manuscript files by the editorial office to ensure an unbiased assessment.
Each research article, clinical study, review article, case report, or other scholarly submission that passes the initial editorial screening is evaluated by at least two independent external reviewers with expertise in the relevant medical or surgical discipline. Reviewers are selected based on their academic qualifications, research experience, publication record, and subject-matter expertise. The journal seeks reviewers who are free from conflicts of interest and capable of providing objective, constructive, and evidence-based evaluations. In exceptional cases where highly specialized expertise is required, qualified Editorial Board members may participate in the review process, provided they have no institutional or professional connection with the authors.
Reviewers assess manuscripts according to several key criteria, including the originality and scientific significance of the research, methodological rigor, appropriateness of statistical analyses, ethical compliance, clarity of presentation, accuracy of interpretation, and the relevance of the conclusions to the data presented. Particular attention is given to adherence to recognized ethical standards, including patient confidentiality, informed consent requirements, and internationally accepted medical research guidelines.
The peer review process begins with an initial editorial desk review, typically completed within one to two weeks, during which the Editor-in-Chief or a designated editor evaluates the manuscript for suitability, formatting compliance, ethical requirements, and plagiarism screening. Manuscripts that do not meet the journal’s basic standards or fall outside its scope may be rejected without external review. Eligible manuscripts proceed to external peer review, which generally takes four to six weeks. Reviewers provide detailed comments and recommend one of the following outcomes: acceptance, minor revision, major revision, or rejection. Following receipt of reviewer reports, the handling editor evaluates all recommendations and makes a preliminary decision. If reviewer opinions differ substantially, an additional independent reviewer may be invited to provide further assessment. Authors are then notified of the editorial decision and receive anonymized reviewer comments.
When revisions are requested, authors are expected to submit a revised manuscript together with a detailed point-by-point response explaining how each reviewer comment has been addressed. Depending on the nature and extent of the revisions, the manuscript may be returned to the original reviewers for further evaluation before a final publication decision is reached. The journal strives to complete the revision and re-evaluation stage within two to four weeks, although timelines may vary depending on the complexity of the manuscript and reviewer availability.
IJSMR maintains complete editorial independence in all publishing decisions. Manuscripts are evaluated solely on the basis of scientific quality, originality, clinical relevance, methodological soundness, and ethical integrity. Editorial decisions are never influenced by commercial interests, institutional affiliations, nationality, gender, race, religion, or the ability of authors to pay publication-related fees. Authors who believe a significant error or misunderstanding occurred during the review process may submit a formal appeal to the editorial office. Appeals must include a clear and evidence-based explanation of the concerns raised. Such appeals are reviewed by the Editor-in-Chief and, where appropriate, an independent Editorial Board member who was not involved in the original decision. The outcome of the appeal review is considered final.
This Peer Review Policy is reviewed periodically to ensure alignment with international publishing standards and best practices, including the principles and recommendations established by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). As the journal continues to expand its editorial operations and adopt advanced manuscript management systems, review procedures and timelines may be updated to enhance efficiency, transparency, and quality assurance.
