The Journal of Pioneering Medical Sciences (JPMS) is committed to maintaining the highest standards of academic integrity through a rigorous and transparent peer-review process. Our peer-review policy ensures that published research is of the highest quality, ethically sound, and contributes significantly to the advancement of medical sciences.

 

 

Peer Review Process

JPMS follows a single-blind peer-review system, where reviewers remain anonymous while authors’ identities are disclosed. The process is structured as follows:

• Initial Screening – The Managing Editor conducts a technical pre-check of the manuscript to ensure adherence to submission guidelines, formatting, and ethical compliance.
• Editorial Pre-check – An academic editor (Editorial Board Member or Editor-in-Chief) assesses the manuscript for suitability, originality, and significance. The editor may:
  • Reject the manuscript outright,
  • Request minor or major revisions before peer review,
  • Proceed with the peer-review process by selecting expert reviewers.
• Peer Review Assignment – At least two independent experts are invited to review the manuscript. Reviewers evaluate:
  • Scientific validity and methodological soundness,
  • Originality and significance of findings,
  • Ethical compliance and transparency in research reporting.
• Reviewer Reports and Author Revisions – Reviewers provide detailed reports, recommending acceptance, revision, or rejection. Authors must address reviewer comments through a structured revision process.
• Editorial Decision – Based on reviewers’ feedback, the academic editor makes the final decision on acceptance, revision, or rejection. The Editor-in-Chief holds the ultimate authority in editorial decisions.
• Copy-editing and Publication – Once accepted, the manuscript undergoes professional copy-editing before final publication.

 

Reviewer Responsibilities

Reviewers play a vital role in ensuring the quality and credibility of published research. All reviewers must adhere to ethical guidelines set by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).

 

Reviewer Criteria

Reviewers must meet the following criteria:

• No conflicts of interest with the authors.
• Not affiliated with the same institution as the authors.
• No recent co-publications (last three years) with the authors.
• Hold a PhD, MD, or equivalent qualification in the relevant field.
• Have a proven publication record indexed in Scopus or ORCID.
• Hold an official and recognized academic affiliation.

 

Reviewer Expectations

• Expertise: Reviewers should assess manuscripts within their area of expertise.
• Timeliness: Reviews must be completed within the agreed timeframe.
• Constructive Feedback: Reports should provide clear, structured, and constructive feedback to help authors improve their work.
• Confidentiality: Reviewers must maintain strict confidentiality regarding manuscript content and authorship.
• Ethical Integrity: Reviewers must not use AI-generated tools (e.g., ChatGPT) for reviewing manuscripts to preserve confidentiality.

 

Benefits for Reviewers

JPMS acknowledges the valuable contributions of its reviewers through:

 

• APC Discounts: Reviewers receive a 25% discount on Article Processing Charges (APC) for a future submission.
• Certificate of Recognition: Personalized certificates are issued to acknowledge reviewers' contributions.
• Outstanding Reviewer Awards: Exceptional reviewers are considered for annual awards.
• Annual Acknowledgment: Reviewers who complete over 100 reviews per year are publicly acknowledged.
• Editorial Board Consideration: Outstanding reviewers may be invited to join the Editorial Board.
• Web of Science Recognition: Reviewers can link their contributions to Web of Science Reviewer Recognition Service and ORCID profiles.

 

Guidelines for Reviewers
Reviewer Invitation

• Accept or decline invitations based on manuscript relevance.
• Recommend alternative reviewers if unable to accept.
• Notify the Managing Editor if more time is required for review completion.

 

Managing Conflicts of Interest

Reviewers must disclose any potential conflicts, including:

 

• Institutional affiliations with authors.
• Recent collaborations or joint publications.
• Financial interests related to the manuscript.
• Personal, political, or academic biases.

 

Confidentiality and Ethical Standards

• Manuscripts must be treated as confidential.
• Reviewer identity should remain anonymous.
• Unauthorized sharing or delegation of reviews is prohibited.

 

Preparing a Review Report

Reviewers should provide:

 

• Comprehensive Evaluation – A detailed analysis of manuscript quality, figures, tables, and methods.
• Specific Comments – Constructive feedback addressing scientific content, methodology, and interpretation of results.
• Constructive Criticism – Encouragement for improvement while maintaining professionalism.
• Adherence to Standards – Compliance with ICMJE, CONSORT, PRISMA, and COPE guidelines.
• Assessment of Scientific Soundness – Validity of methodology, statistical accuracy, reproducibility, and ethical considerations.

 

Manuscript Evaluation Criteria

Reviewers assess manuscripts based on the following criteria:

 

Scientific Quality & Originality

• Novelty and originality of research.
• Relevance to medical sciences.
• Clarity and justification of research questions.

 

Methodology & Data Integrity

• Appropriateness of study design.
• Reproducibility of results.
• Ethical compliance in research methodology.

 

Impact & Significance

• Contribution to the field.
• Potential for further research and clinical application.

 

Presentation & Readability

• Logical organization and clarity of writing.
• Accuracy in figures, tables, and data presentation.

 

Manuscript Decision Categories

Based on the review process, manuscripts are categorized as:

• Accept in Present Form – No revisions required.
• Accept after Minor Revisions – Small changes needed; authors must resubmit within 5 days.
• Reconsider after Major Revisions – Significant revisions required; authors must resubmit within 10 days.
• Reject – Manuscript does not meet the journal’s standards.

 

The Journal of Pioneering Medical Sciences upholds a fair, rigorous, and transparent peer-review process to ensure high-quality scientific publications. We sincerely appreciate the invaluable contributions of our reviewers and their commitment to academic excellence.