Peer Review Process
International Medical Journal of Health (IMJH)
ISSN: 2395-6291 | Double-Blind Peer Review | COPE Member | Since 2015
Our Commitment to Rigorous Review
Publication of articles in IMJH is dependent solely on scientific validity, originality, and coherence as judged by our editors and peer reviewers [citation:1]. IMJH follows the policies and guidelines of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and abides by its Code of Conduct in dealing with potential cases of misconduct [citation:3].
Average time from submission to first decision: 7-10 days | Average time to final decision: 21-30 days
7-10
Days to First Decision
2-3
Reviewers per Manuscript
450+
Active Reviewers Worldwide
2
Maximum Revision Rounds
Peer Review Process Navigation
1 Overview of Peer Review at IMJH
Core Principles
Publication of articles in IMJH is dependent solely on scientific validity and coherence as judged by our editors and peer reviewers, who will also assess whether the writing is comprehensible and whether the work represents a useful contribution to the field [citation:1].
Key Features of IMJH Peer Review
- Double-Blind Review: Authors and reviewers remain anonymous throughout the process [citation:3].
- COPE Compliance: Full adherence to Committee on Publication Ethics guidelines [citation:3].
- 2-3 Reviewers: Each manuscript reviewed by 2-3 independent experts [citation:1].
- Structured Evaluation: Standardized criteria including originality, methodology, and significance.
- Confidential Process: All manuscripts treated as confidential documents.
What Peer Review Evaluates
- Scientific Soundness: Validity of methodology and conclusions [citation:1].
- Originality: Novel contribution to the field [citation:3].
- Duplication: Whether it duplicates already published works [citation:1].
- Clarity: Whether the manuscript is sufficiently clear for publication [citation:1].
- Ethical Compliance: Adherence to research ethics standards.
COPE Membership:
IMJH is a proud member of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and follows its Core Practices and flowcharts for all editorial processes [citation:3].
2 Initial Editorial Evaluation
Initial Assessment Process
The Editor will first evaluate all manuscripts submitted. Although rare, it is entirely feasible for an exceptional manuscript to be accepted at this stage [citation:1].
Step 1: Submission Receipt
Corresponding author notified by email with manuscript registration number [citation:3]. Please mention this manuscript number in all subsequent correspondence [citation:3].
Step 2: Format & Plagiarism Check
Technical check for adherence to author guidelines and plagiarism screening using iThenticate. Manuscripts with similarity >20% may be returned or rejected.
Step 3: Editorial Assessment
Editor-in-Chief or Section Editor assesses scope, originality, and scientific quality.
Step 4: Decision
Manuscript either rejected at this stage or passed on to experts for peer review [citation:1].
Reasons for Rejection at Initial Stage
- Insufficiently original [citation:1]
- Serious scientific flaws [citation:1]
- Outside aims and scope [citation:1]
- High plagiarism score (>20%)
- Incomplete or missing elements
- Poor English/readability
Timeline:
Initial evaluation completed within 3-5 business days.
3 Reviewer Selection & Invitation
Reviewer Selection Criteria
- Expertise: Demonstrated expertise through publications and experience [citation:3].
- No conflicts: No recent collaboration, institutional affiliation, or personal relationship with authors [citation:3].
- Active researcher: Currently active in the relevant field.
- Track record: Quality of previous reviews.
Invitation Process
- Number invited: 3-5 reviewers invited to secure 2-3 acceptances.
- Response time: Reviewers asked to respond within 48 hours.
- Suggested reviewers: Authors may suggest peer-reviewers with whom they do not have a conflict of interest [citation:3].
- Opposed reviewers: Authors may request exclusion of specific reviewers with valid reasons [citation:3].
Author Suggestion of Reviewers:
Authors may suggest peer-reviewers with whom they do not have a conflict of interest. However, the editor is not obligated to use suggested reviewers and will make final selection decisions based on expertise and availability [citation:3].
4 Double-Blind Review Process
Double-Blind Peer Review
IMJH adheres to a double-blind peer-review process, as part of which the authors and the reviewers remain anonymous throughout the process [citation:3]. This approach limits bias by focusing purely on the content [citation:3].
Benefits of Double-Blind Review
- Minimizes bias: Reduces conscious or unconscious bias based on author identity, gender, nationality, or institutional prestige [citation:3].
- Focus on content: Evaluation based purely on scientific merit and quality [citation:3].
- Fairness: Provides equal opportunity to early-career researchers and authors from less prestigious institutions.
- Constructive criticism: Encourages honest, constructive feedback [citation:3].
Author Responsibilities for Blinding
- Remove author details: All author names, affiliations, and identifying information must be removed from the manuscript file.
- Self-citations: Cite own work in third person (e.g., "as previously shown [1]" not "as we previously showed").
- File properties: Ensure document properties do not contain author names.
- Acknowledgments: Remove acknowledgments from blinded manuscript (include in title page).
Title Page:
Authors must upload a separate title page containing all author names, affiliations, ORCID iDs, and contact information. The main manuscript file must be anonymized for peer review.
5 Review Timeline & Milestones
Day 0: Submission
Manuscript submitted; automatic acknowledgment sent to corresponding author with manuscript ID.
Days 1-3: Initial Editorial Check
Format check, plagiarism screening, scope assessment. Approximately 10 days after submission, manuscript sent for external peer review [citation:3].
Days 3-7: Reviewer Invitation
Reviewers invited; expected to accept/decline within 48 hours.
Days 7-28: Peer Review
Reviewers are asked to complete their review within one month, but are allowed to extend the review period to complete and submit their report [citation:3].
Days 28-35: Editorial Decision
Editor integrates reviewer reports and makes decision. A reply may be expected four to six weeks after submission [citation:3].
Days 35-65: Revision & Final Decision
When revisions are requested, revised manuscripts must be received within approximately one month [citation:3]. Final acceptance takes about 12 weeks in case of final approval [citation:3].
Total Average Time to Publication:
Based on the level of requested modifications, being accepted takes about 12 weeks (in case of final approval by reviewers and the Editor-in-Chief) [citation:3].
6 Editorial Decision Making
Editor Has Final Authority
Reviewers advise the editor, who is responsible for the final decision to accept or reject the article [citation:1]. The Editors will reach a decision based on these reports and, where necessary, will consult with members of the Editorial Board [citation:1].
Decision Making Process
1. Review Reports Received
All reviewer reports collected and assessed by handling editor.
2. Synthesis of Reviews
Editor weighs reviewer recommendations and comments against journal standards and scope.
3. Editorial Consultation (if needed)
For complex cases or conflicting reviews, editor may consult Editorial Board members [citation:1].
4. Final Decision
Editor issues decision with detailed rationale, incorporating reviewer feedback [citation:1].
Decision Timeline
- First decision: 4-6 weeks after submission [citation:3]
- Revision decision: 2-4 weeks after resubmission
- Final acceptance: ~12 weeks total [citation:3]
Notification:
Decision letters sent to corresponding author via email with reviewer comments attached.
7 Decision Categories & Meanings
| Decision Category | Meaning | Next Steps |
|---|---|---|
| Accept | The manuscript is considered to warrant high quality and can be published in the journal [citation:3]. Rare at initial submission; typically after revisions. | Proceed to copyediting and production. |
| Minor Revision | Manuscript requires small changes that do not affect scientific validity (clarifications, additional explanations, minor corrections). | Authors given 14 days to revise; revised version may be sent directly to Editor for approval [citation:3]. |
| Major Revision | Manuscript requires substantial changes that may require additional analysis, rewriting, or significant clarification [citation:3]. | Authors given 28 days to revise; revised version sent back to reviewers for reassessment [citation:3]. |
| Reject | The manuscript is considered to have major flaws that could not be resolved by revision and resubmission [citation:3]. If two reviewers reject a manuscript, it will be rejected [citation:3]. | Final decision; authors may appeal within 15 days [citation:3]. |
| Transfer | Manuscript may be more suitable for another journal section or a different publication. | Author consent required for transfer. |
๐ Note on Revisions:
When revisions are requested prior to the final decision, revised manuscripts must be received within approximately one month [citation:3]. In order to guarantee the swiftness of the editorial process, each manuscript will only be allowed two rounds of review and revisions [citation:3]. Authors are thus urged to address all issues raised by the reviewers directly after the first round of peer-review [citation:3].
8 Revision & Resubmission Process
How to Prepare a Revision
1. Response Letter
Prepare a detailed point-by-point response to all reviewer comments. Indicate how each comment was addressed and where changes were made.
2. Revised Manuscript
Submit revised manuscript with changes highlighted or tracked for easy review.
3. Resubmission Timeline
Minor revisions: 14 days | Major revisions: 28 days [citation:3]
4. Maximum Revision Rounds
Each manuscript will only be allowed two rounds of review and revisions [citation:3].
Response Letter Template
Dear Editor,
Thank you for the opportunity to revise our manuscript (ID: IMJH-2025-123). We have addressed all reviewer comments as follows:
Reviewer 1 Comment 1:
"The sample size calculation needs clarification."
Author Response:
We have added a detailed sample size calculation in the Methods section (page 5, lines 145-152).
[Continue for all comments]
9 Handling Conflicting Reviewer Reports
Process for Conflicting Reviews
If a reviewer's opinion is a major revision and the second one rejects the manuscript
The manuscript will be submitted to the third reviewer who has not previously evaluated the manuscript, and according to his/her idea relevant to the first and second reviewer, the decision will be made [citation:3].
If the opinion of the two reviewers is the major revision of the manuscript
The manuscript will be submitted to the author for revision. Finally, the modified version of the manuscript will be sent to one of the reviewers who has previously evaluated the manuscript for comparative assessment [citation:3].
If two reviewers reject a manuscript
It will be rejected [citation:3].
Summary
- 2 accepts: Accept
- 2 major revisions: Major revision required
- 2 rejects: Reject
- Split decision: Third reviewer
10 Appeals Process
Right to Appeal
Should an author be dissatisfied with an editorial decision, they may submit an appeal to the Editor-in-Chief [citation:3].
Appeal Procedure
Step 1: Submit Appeal
Send e-mail to the Editor-in-Chief within 15 days of notification of the decision [citation:3].
Step 2: Provide Detailed Letter
Letter detailing the reasons for the appeal as well as a full response to any reviewers' comments, if relevant [citation:3].
Step 3: Review Process
If appropriate, the manuscript will be sent to another reviewer who has not previously evaluated the manuscript [citation:3]. The reviewers' comments, along with any subsequent editorial communications, will be assessed by the Editor-in-Chief [citation:3].
Step 4: Final Decision
The Editor-in-Chief will meet to review all pertinent documentation (manuscript, emails, evaluations, etc.) and render a final decision within one month [citation:3]. The Editor-in-Chief's decision will be final [citation:3].
Appeal Submission
๐ง Email:
๐ Subject Line:
"APPEAL: [Manuscript ID] - [Corresponding Author]"
โฑ๏ธ Deadline:
Within 15 days of decision notification [citation:3]
11 Post-Acceptance Processing
Copyediting
After the manuscript is accepted for publication it will undergo a first stage of copy editing where the Editorial staff will correct any minor mistakes (such as punctuation or references) and check that all necessary information has been provided [citation:3].
Authors will receive an edited version of their manuscript for author copy editing after acceptance [citation:3]. This is the last stage where any substantial copy editing changes to the text are allowed (the next stageโproofreadingโis restricted to correcting typographical and layout errors) [citation:3].
Proofreading
The Editorial staff will create the final version of the manuscript in the journal's template and the PDF proof will be sent to the author for final proofreading before publication [citation:3].
Authors should carefully check the proofs for typographical or layout errors, and use the sticky notes tool to mark and explain any changes necessary [citation:3].
Publication
After the final proofread manuscript has been received and the last corrections have been performed the manuscript will be published. The author will be promptly informed as soon as the article is available online. In some cases, the publication may be delayed to guarantee that all articles are published simultaneously [citation:3].
๐ Publication Timeline:
Accepted manuscripts typically published online within 7-14 days after final acceptance and author approval of proofs.
12 Contact & Support
Editorial Office
๐ง Primary Email:
๐ง Secondary Email:
๐ Subject Line Protocol:
Status Inquiry: "STATUS: [Manuscript ID]"
Appeal: "APPEAL: [Manuscript ID]"
Revision Submission: "REVISION: [Manuscript ID]"
Response Commitments
- Submission acknowledgment: Within 24 hours
- Status inquiries: Within 48 hours
- Appeal acknowledgment: Within 48 hours
- Appeal decision: Within 30 days [citation:3]
๐ฑ Online Tracking:
Track your manuscript status at imjhealth.org/track-article using your manuscript ID.
After manuscript submission, the authors of the manuscript under consideration for publication cannot be added, removed, or ordered differently [citation:3]. After submitting the manuscript, authors should only communicate with the Editor-in-Chief and the Editorial Office regarding the progress of the review process [citation:3].
Peer Review Process Flowchart
Step 1
Submission
Step 2
Initial Editorial Check
Step 3
Reviewer Invitation
Step 4
Peer Review
Step 5
Editorial Decision
COPE Resources for Peer Review
IMJH follows COPE's ethical guidelines for peer review. Reviewers and authors may consult these resources:
Peer Review Acknowledgment
IMJH acknowledged the effort and suggestions made by its reviewers [citation:1]. Peer-reviews improve the quality of scientific publications, ensure previous research work in a particular research area is acknowledged, detect plagiarism, and play a central role in academic course development [citation:3]. An added value of participating in peer-review is keeping up-to-date with the latest developments in the field [citation:3].
Process at a Glance
Track Your Manuscript
Check the status of your submitted manuscript online.
Track SubmissionUse your manuscript ID
Decision Options
Reviewer Resources
IMJH follows COPE guidelines for all editorial processes [citation:3].
Questions?
Contact the editorial office about the review process:
Use manuscript ID in subject line