The peer review process can be broadly summarized into 10 steps, although these steps can vary slightly between journals. Explore what’s involved, below.
Editor Feedback: “Reviewers should remember that they are representing the readers of the journal. Will the readers of this particular journal find this informative and useful?”
The Medicinal, Psychological, and Health Research Journal (MPHRJ) follows a rigorous, transparent, and double-anonymized peer review process to ensure the scientific quality, originality, methodological soundness, and ethical integrity of all published articles.
All manuscripts submitted to MPHRJ undergo an initial editorial assessment before being sent for external peer review. During this stage, the editorial team evaluates the manuscript for:
Manuscripts that are outside the journal's scope, substantially deficient in scientific or ethical standards, or not compliant with the journal's basic requirements may be rejected at the editorial screening stage without external peer review.
MPHRJ uses a double-anonymized (double-blind) peer review process. The identities of authors are not disclosed to reviewers, and reviewers' identities are not disclosed to authors.
Authors should therefore ensure that the submitted manuscript and supplementary files do not contain unnecessary information that could directly identify them or their institutions during the review process.
The editorial office may remove identifying information from files when necessary to preserve the anonymity of the review process.
Manuscripts that pass the initial editorial screening are assigned to qualified independent reviewers with appropriate expertise in the subject area of the manuscript.
Reviewers are selected based on:
The journal aims to obtain evaluations from at least two independent reviewers for each research manuscript whenever possible.
The Editor-in-Chief or a designated handling editor is responsible for selecting appropriate reviewers and overseeing the review process.
Reviewers are asked to evaluate manuscripts according to relevant scientific and editorial criteria, including:
Reviewers may recommend acceptance, minor revision, major revision, or rejection. Reviewer recommendations are advisory, and the final editorial decision remains the responsibility of the journal.
Based on the reviewers' reports and the editor's independent assessment, the manuscript may receive one of the following decisions:
The journal does not make publication decisions solely on the basis of a numerical reviewer score. The quality and substance of the reviewers' comments, together with the editor's assessment, are considered in reaching the final decision.
When revisions are requested, authors should submit a revised manuscript together with a detailed response to the reviewers' comments.
Authors are expected to clearly indicate how each substantive reviewer comment has been addressed. When a requested change is not made, the authors should provide an appropriate scientific justification.
Revised manuscripts may be returned to the original reviewers, particularly when substantial methodological or scientific changes have been requested.
All information related to the peer review process is treated confidentially. Reviewers must not disclose, copy, distribute, or use unpublished manuscript content for personal or professional purposes.
Reviewers should not contact authors directly regarding a manuscript under review unless explicitly authorized by the journal.
Reviewers must disclose any actual, potential, or perceived conflict of interest that could affect the objectivity of their evaluation.
A reviewer should decline the invitation if they have a personal, professional, institutional, financial, or other relationship with the authors that could reasonably compromise impartiality.
The journal may replace a reviewer when a conflict of interest is identified.
Reviewers are expected to provide objective, respectful, evidence-based, and constructive comments.
Reviewers should:
Suspected ethical concerns identified during peer review should be reported confidentially to the editorial office.
Editorial decisions are made independently of commercial interests, advertising, sponsorship, or other external influences.
The Editor-in-Chief and handling editors are responsible for ensuring that manuscripts are evaluated on the basis of their scientific and scholarly merit.
Editors and reviewers must not participate in decisions involving manuscripts in which they have a conflict of interest.
MPHRJ aims to process manuscripts efficiently while maintaining the quality and integrity of peer review.
The journal currently reports an average refereeing time of approximately 5–8 weeks. The actual duration may vary depending on reviewer availability, manuscript complexity, the need for additional review, and the time required for authors to complete revisions.
The editorial office may contact additional reviewers when invited reviewers decline or fail to respond within the requested timeframe.
Peer reviewers provide expert recommendations, but they do not make the final publication decision.
The final decision regarding acceptance, revision, or rejection rests with the Editor-in-Chief or the designated handling editor, taking into account the reviewers' assessments, the scientific quality of the manuscript, ethical considerations, and the overall standards of MPHRJ.
MPHRJ reserves the right to reject a manuscript at any stage if significant scientific, ethical, authorship, plagiarism, or publication-integrity concerns are identified.
Authors who believe that a significant error or misunderstanding affected an editorial decision may submit an appeal to the editorial office in accordance with the journal's Complaints and Appeals Policy.
Appeals must provide a clear scientific or procedural justification and should not simply repeat arguments already considered during peer review.
All appeals are evaluated by the editorial team independently and fairly.
Submission → Editorial Screening → Reviewer Selection → Double-Anonymized Peer Review → Editorial Assessment → Decision → Revision/Re-Review (if required) → Final Decision → Publication
MPHRJ is committed to maintaining a fair, confidential, independent, and scientifically rigorous peer review process for all manuscripts submitted to the journal.
The Medical and Pharmaceutical Health Research Journal (MPHRJ) is committed to maintaining an editorial structure that supports scientific rigor, editorial independence, research integrity, and fair manuscript evaluation.
The editorial team is responsible for ensuring that submitted manuscripts are assessed according to the journal's aims and scope, scientific quality requirements, publication ethics policies, and peer-review procedures.
Editorial appointments are based on relevant academic qualifications, subject-matter expertise, research experience, and the ability to contribute to the journal's editorial responsibilities.
The Editor-in-Chief provides overall academic and editorial leadership for the journal.
The responsibilities of the Editor-in-Chief include:
Maintaining the journal's scientific quality and editorial standards.
Ensuring that editorial decisions are based on scientific merit, methodological rigor, originality, and relevance to the journal's scope.
Overseeing the peer-review process and ensuring appropriate management of competing interests.
Supporting consistent application of the journal's publication ethics policies.
Ensuring that editorial decisions are made independently of commercial, financial, or personal considerations.
Supervising the handling of ethical concerns, corrections, expressions of concern, and retractions when appropriate.
Reviewing the performance and subject coverage of the editorial team.
Associate Editors and Section Editors support the editorial evaluation of manuscripts within their areas of expertise.
Their responsibilities may include:
Assessing the scientific relevance and methodological quality of submissions.
Identifying qualified independent reviewers.
Evaluating reviewers' comments and authors' responses.
Recommending editorial decisions based on the available scientific evidence.
Identifying potential conflicts of interest and taking appropriate steps to manage them.
Ensuring that relevant ethical and reporting requirements are considered during manuscript evaluation.
Each manuscript is assigned to an editor whose expertise is appropriate to the subject matter whenever feasible.
Editorial Board Members contribute to the scientific development and quality assurance of the journal within their areas of expertise.
Their responsibilities may include:
Providing subject-specific scientific advice.
Participating in peer review when appropriate and when conflicts of interest are absent.
Advising on emerging research areas and relevant reporting standards.
Supporting the journal's commitment to research integrity and publication ethics.
Contributing to the continuous improvement of editorial policies and procedures.
Editorial Board membership does not guarantee manuscript acceptance or preferential treatment for submissions.
Editorial decisions are made according to the journal's scientific and ethical standards.
Authors, institutions, sponsors, advertisers, and other external parties must not improperly influence editorial decisions. Funding and commercial relationships must be managed in a manner that protects editorial independence.
The journal aims to ensure that decisions regarding manuscript acceptance, revision, or rejection are based on the quality, validity, originality, and relevance of the submitted work.
All editors and reviewers must disclose potential conflicts of interest that could influence, or reasonably appear to influence, their judgment.
Conflicts may include financial relationships, institutional affiliations, professional competition, personal relationships, collaborative research, or other circumstances that could compromise impartiality.
Individuals with relevant conflicts of interest must not participate in decisions where their impartiality may be affected. When necessary, the manuscript will be reassigned to an independent editor.
Editors and Editorial Board Members may submit manuscripts to MPHRJ, provided that such submissions are handled through an independent editorial process.
An editor who is an author, co-author, or otherwise has a relevant conflict of interest must not participate in the editorial evaluation, reviewer selection, or publication decision for that manuscript.
The journal will assign the manuscript to an independent editor who has no relevant conflict of interest. Peer review and editorial decisions must follow the same scientific and ethical standards applied to other submissions.
The journal provides publicly accessible information about its editorial leadership and Editorial Board, including members' names, academic affiliations, and relevant areas of expertise.
Editorial appointments should reflect the journal's actual subject coverage and the expertise required to evaluate submitted manuscripts.
The journal reviews its editorial structure periodically to maintain appropriate subject coverage, professional accountability, and compliance with its editorial policies.
The editorial team is committed to responsible scholarly publishing, fair peer review, transparency, and the protection of the scientific record.
Concerns about research misconduct, unreliable findings, duplicate publication, plagiarism, authorship disputes, or other ethical issues are handled according to the journal's applicable policies and recognized publication ethics practices.
