Peer Review Policy
Peer Review and Editorial Process
The MISJ-International Journal of Medical Research and Allied Sciences (MISJ-IJMRAAS), published by Malwa International Scientific Journals (MISJ), follows a rigorous, fair, and transparent peer review process to ensure the quality, integrity, and scientific validity of all published articles.
All manuscripts are evaluated solely on the basis of academic merit, originality, clarity, scientific quality, and relevance to the journal’s scope, without discrimination based on the authors’ nationality, gender, institutional affiliation, or personal background.
The journal follows internationally recognized publication ethics and good editorial practices, including the recommendations of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE).
Type of Peer Review
MISJ-IJMRAAS operates a Double-Blind Peer Review system.
-
Authors do not know the identity of reviewers.
-
Reviewers do not know the identity of authors.
This process is intended to promote objective, independent, and unbiased evaluation of submitted manuscripts.
Submission Policy
Manuscripts submitted to MISJ-IJMRAAS must be original work and must not have been previously published or be under consideration for publication elsewhere.
Simultaneous submission of the same manuscript to multiple journals is considered unethical and may result in rejection.
Authors are responsible for ensuring that the submitted manuscript complies with applicable ethical, scientific, authorship, and publication requirements.
Editorial and Review Workflow
1. Initial Editorial Screening
After submission, manuscripts undergo an initial evaluation by the Editor-in-Chief or assigned handling editor to assess:
-
relevance to the journal’s scope;
-
originality and scientific significance;
-
compliance with the journal’s submission guidelines;
-
ethical and research integrity requirements; and
-
plagiarism or similarity screening.
Manuscripts with serious ethical concerns, substantial plagiarism, inadequate scientific quality, or those outside the journal’s scope may be rejected without external peer review.
2. Peer Review
Manuscripts that pass the initial editorial screening are normally assigned to at least two independent subject experts for peer review.
Reviewers evaluate manuscripts with regard to:
-
scientific quality;
-
appropriateness of methodology and study design;
-
accuracy and interpretation of data;
-
originality and significance;
-
clarity and organization of presentation; and
-
ethical compliance.
Reviewers are expected to provide constructive, objective, and evidence-based comments that may assist authors in improving their manuscripts.
The journal is not obligated to send every submitted manuscript for external peer review and is not required to follow reviewer recommendations. The final editorial decision remains the responsibility of the Editor-in-Chief or designated editor. This is consistent with the principle that editors retain responsibility for the journal's published content.
3. Reviewer Selection
Reviewers are selected based on their subject expertise, academic qualifications, research experience, and relevant publication record.
Authors may suggest potential reviewers during submission; however, the final selection of reviewers remains solely at the discretion of the editorial team.
Reviewers must declare any actual or potential conflicts of interest before accepting an assignment. Reviewers should decline to review a manuscript when a conflict may compromise, or reasonably appear to compromise, their impartiality.
4. Editorial Decision
Based on the peer-review reports and the editorial assessment, the Editor-in-Chief or assigned editor may make one of the following decisions:
-
Accept
-
Minor Revision
-
Major Revision
-
Reject
The final publication decision is made by the Editor-in-Chief or authorized handling editor after careful consideration of the reviewers’ comments, the manuscript’s scientific quality, ethical compliance, and suitability for the journal.
Reviewer recommendations are advisory and do not automatically determine the final editorial decision.
5. Revisions
Authors receiving a revision request must submit:
-
a revised manuscript; and
-
a detailed point-by-point response addressing the reviewers’ comments.
Authors should clearly indicate the changes made in the revised manuscript, where applicable.
Revised manuscripts may be returned to the original reviewers or evaluated by other qualified reviewers when considered necessary.
Acceptance of a revised manuscript depends on satisfactory responses to the reviewers’ comments and final editorial approval.
6. Typical Review Timeline
The journal aims to process manuscripts efficiently while maintaining rigorous peer-review standards.
Typical timelines are:
-
Initial editorial screening: 2-3 weeks
-
Double-blind peer review: approximately 2–3 weeks
-
Revision period: depends on the authors
-
Final editorial decision: usually within approximately 4–5 weeks of submission
Actual processing times may vary depending on reviewer availability, manuscript complexity, the extent of revisions required, and the time taken by authors to submit revised manuscripts.
The journal aims to complete the editorial and peer-review process as efficiently as possible without compromising scientific quality or review integrity.
Confidentiality
All submitted manuscripts, reviewer reports, editorial communications, and related materials are treated as confidential.
Editors and reviewers must not share, disclose, publicly discuss, or use unpublished information obtained through the peer-review process for personal or professional advantage.
Reviewer identities remain confidential under the journal’s double-blind peer-review system.
Confidentiality may be appropriately limited where investigation of suspected research misconduct, fraud, plagiarism, or other serious ethical concerns requires disclosure to the relevant parties.
The journal follows the confidentiality principles described in current ICMJE recommendations.
Conflict of Interest
Authors, reviewers, editors, and editorial board members are expected to disclose financial, professional, personal, or other relationships that could influence or reasonably appear to influence the evaluation or publication of a manuscript.
Reviewers must inform the editorial office of any potential conflict of interest and should decline the review when impartiality cannot be maintained.
Editors should recuse themselves from editorial handling when a conflict of interest exists.
Author Appeals
Authors may appeal an editorial decision by submitting a written and reasoned request to the editorial office.
Appeals should clearly explain the grounds for reconsideration and, where appropriate, address factual or procedural concerns regarding the editorial decision.
Appeals are reviewed by the Editor-in-Chief and/or an appropriate member of the editorial team or Editorial Board who was not directly involved in the original decision, where feasible.
The outcome of an appeal is final within the journal's editorial process.
Ethical Compliance
MISJ-IJMRAAS follows internationally recognized principles of publication ethics and good editorial practice, including:
-
Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) guidelines
-
International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) Recommendations
-
Good editorial and peer-review practices
The journal may investigate suspected publication misconduct, including plagiarism, duplicate publication, fabrication, falsification, unethical research practices, authorship disputes, and other breaches of publication ethics.
Depending on the findings, appropriate editorial action may include rejection, correction, expression of concern, or retraction.
The journal's ethical procedures are intended to protect the integrity of the scholarly record and maintain confidence among authors, reviewers, editors, and readers. The current ICMJE Recommendations also address confidentiality, peer review, integrity, conflicts of interest, clinical-trial reporting, and responsible use of AI in publishing.