Peer Review Policy
- Objective of Peer Review: The primary objective of peer review in the "Review Journal of Neurological & Medical Sciences Review" is to ensure the publication of high-quality, original research articles, reviews, and other scholarly works in the field of neurological and medical sciences. Peer review serves to uphold the integrity and credibility of the journal by evaluating the scientific validity, originality, and significance of submitted manuscripts.
- Peer Review Process: Upon submission, all manuscripts undergo a rigorous peer review process conducted by experts in the relevant fields of neurological and medical sciences. The review process is double-blinded, ensuring anonymity for both the authors and the reviewers. Reviewers are selected based on their expertise, experience, and scholarly contributions in the subject matter of the submitted manuscript.
- Reviewer Selection: Reviewers are selected based on their expertise, experience, and scholarly contributions in the subject matter of the submitted manuscript. The editorial board of the journal maintains a database of qualified reviewers and may also seek recommendations from authors, editorial board members, and other experts in the field.
- Reviewer Responsibilities: Reviewers are expected to provide constructive, objective, and timely feedback on the scholarly merits of the manuscript. Reviewers should evaluate the originality, significance, methodology, data interpretation, and overall quality of the research presented in the manuscript. Reviewers are also encouraged to identify any ethical concerns or conflicts of interest that may arise during the review process.
- Confidentiality: Reviewers are required to maintain the confidentiality of the peer review process and refrain from disclosing any details about the manuscript or the review process to unauthorized individuals. Reviewers should not use or distribute the manuscript for personal or professional gain.
- Peer Review Criteria: The peer review process evaluates manuscripts based on the following criteria:
- Scientific Validity: Is the research scientifically sound and based on robust methodology?
- Originality: Does the manuscript present novel findings or insights that contribute to the advancement of knowledge in the field?
- Significance: Are the results significant and relevant to the field of neurological and medical sciences?
- Clarity and Coherence: Is the manuscript well-written, organized, and presented in a clear and coherent manner?
- Decision Making: Based on the feedback provided by the reviewers, the editor-in-chief and the editorial board make a final decision regarding the acceptance, revision, or rejection of the manuscript. Authors are notified of the decision along with the reviewers' comments and suggestions for improvement, if applicable.
- Appeals Process: Authors who disagree with the decision made during the peer review process may appeal the decision by providing a detailed rebuttal to the editor-in-chief. The appeal will be reviewed by the editorial board, and a final decision will be communicated to the authors.