Peer Review Policy

All research articles, review articles, short communications, case reports and methodology papers submitted to the Journal of Medical Sciences (JOMS) are peer reviewed before a decision on publication is made. This policy follows the COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers and the ICMJE Recommendations.

1. Type of peer review

JOMS uses double-blind peer review: the reviewers do not know the identity of the authors, and the authors do not know the identity of the reviewers. Every manuscript sent for review is assessed by at least two independent external reviewers with expertise in the subject. Editorials and invited commentaries are reviewed by the Editor-in-Chief and at least one other editor.

2. Stages and target times

Stage	What happens	Target
1. Desk screening	The editorial office checks scope, compliance with the Author Guidelines, ethics declarations, anonymisation and similarity (Turnitin). The Editor-in-Chief or Managing Editor then assigns a handling editor or declines the manuscript without review.	3 days
2. Peer review	The handling editor invites at least two independent reviewers. Each reviewer submits a report and a recommendation.	14 days
3. Decision	The handling editor makes a recommendation to the Editor-in-Chief: accept, minor revision, major revision or reject. The decision letter includes the reviewers' reports.	2 days
4. Revision	The authors return the revised manuscript with a point-by-point response. Major revisions are normally sent back to the original reviewers.	15 days
5. Acceptance and publication	The Editor-in-Chief approves acceptance. The article is copyedited, proofed by the authors and published online with a Crossref DOI.	5 days

Times are targets, not guarantees. The journal's measured times are reported each year on the Journal Metrics page.

3. How reviewers are selected

Reviewers are selected by the handling editor for their expertise in the subject of the manuscript. A reviewer must not:

work at the same institution as any of the authors;
have co-authored a publication with any of the authors in the last three years;
have any financial, professional or personal conflict of interest with the work or the authors.

Authors may suggest reviewers, but the handling editor is not obliged to use them, and at least one reviewer for every manuscript is chosen independently of the authors' suggestions. Reviewers declare any conflict of interest when they accept an invitation.

4. Criteria for assessment

Reviewers are asked to assess the originality and importance of the work, the soundness of the study design, methods and statistics, whether the conclusions are supported by the data, compliance with ethical standards and reporting guidelines (for example CONSORT, STROBE, PRISMA, CARE), and the clarity of the writing and the accuracy of the references.

5. Editorial decisions

The Editor-in-Chief is responsible for the final decision on every manuscript. When reviewers disagree, the handling editor may invite an additional reviewer before making a recommendation. Decisions are based only on the scientific merit of the work and its relevance to the scope of the journal.

6. Confidentiality and use of AI tools

Manuscripts under review are confidential. Reviewers must not share them, use their content before publication, or upload any part of them to generative AI tools. See the Use of Generative AI Policy.

7. Manuscripts by editors and board members

Manuscripts submitted by the Editor-in-Chief, an editor, an Editorial Board member or a guest editor are handled by another editor who has no conflict of interest. The editor-author has no access to the review of their own manuscript and takes no part in the decision. The journal keeps the proportion of research papers with at least one author from the editorial team at or below 25% of each issue.

8. Special issues and guest editors

The Editor-in-Chief is responsible for the content of the whole journal, including all special issues and collections, which must fall within the scope of the journal.
Special-issue proposals are approved by the Editor-in-Chief. Guest editors' qualifications and publication records are checked and approved before the call is announced.
Guest editors are overseen by the Editor-in-Chief or by a designated member of the Editorial Board.
Special-issue manuscripts go through the same double-blind review by at least two independent external reviewers as regular submissions. Final decisions are made by the Editor-in-Chief.
Manuscripts submitted by a guest editor are handled independently by another editor. Such manuscripts make up no more than 25% of the articles in the special issue.
Special-issue articles are clearly labelled with the name of the special issue on the article page and in the PDF.