Peer Review Process

MEDICA (International Medical Scientific Journal) implements a rigorous, fair, transparent, and confidential peer-review process to ensure the scientific quality, originality, relevance, validity, and academic integrity of manuscripts submitted for publication. The journal considers peer review an essential component of scholarly publishing, particularly in medical and health sciences, where the reliability of research findings and compliance with ethical standards are important for scientific advancement and responsible healthcare practice.

All submitted manuscripts are evaluated according to the journal's focus and scope, author guidelines, publication ethics policies, and established standards of scientific reporting. Editorial decisions are based on scientific merit, methodological rigor, originality, relevance, clarity, and compliance with research and publication ethics. Submission to MEDICA does not guarantee acceptance or publication.

1. Initial Editorial Screening

All manuscripts submitted to MEDICA undergo an initial screening by the Editorial Team to determine whether they meet the journal's basic submission requirements and are suitable for further consideration.

The initial screening includes an assessment of:

  1. Scope and relevance: Whether the manuscript falls within the focus and scope of MEDICA and contributes to medical or health sciences.

  2. Compliance with author guidelines: Whether the manuscript follows the journal's formatting, structure, referencing, and submission requirements.

  3. Scientific quality: Whether the research question, objectives, study design, and presentation demonstrate an adequate level of scientific rigor.

  4. Originality and contribution: Whether the manuscript offers a meaningful contribution to existing knowledge and avoids inappropriate duplication of previously published work.

  5. Research ethics: Whether the manuscript includes relevant statements concerning research ethics approval, informed consent, participant protection, and other ethical requirements, where applicable.

  6. Completeness of submission: Whether all required documents, declarations, tables, figures, supplementary materials, and author information have been provided.

  7. Language and presentation: Whether the manuscript is sufficiently clear and organized to permit meaningful scientific evaluation.

Manuscripts that do not meet the journal's requirements may be returned to the authors for technical correction or rejected without external peer review. The Editorial Team may also reject a manuscript at this stage if it falls outside the journal's scope, has fundamental scientific weaknesses, or raises substantial concerns regarding originality or publication ethics.

2. Similarity and Ethical Screening

MEDICA screens submitted manuscripts for similarity, potential plagiarism, duplicate publication, and other possible publication ethics concerns. The journal may use appropriate similarity-detection software, including Turnitin or other available tools, to support this assessment.

Similarity scores are used as an initial indicator and are not, by themselves, a definitive measure of plagiarism. The Editorial Team evaluates the nature, source, context, and extent of matching text, including whether material is properly quoted, cited, or otherwise legitimately reused.

Ethical screening may also include an assessment of:

  1. Potential plagiarism, self-plagiarism, or inappropriate text recycling.

  2. Duplicate or redundant submission and publication.

  3. Inappropriate reuse or manipulation of data, figures, images, or other research materials.

  4. Authorship disputes, inaccurate author contributions, or misleading declarations.

  5. Missing or inconsistent research ethics approval and informed consent statements, where applicable.

  6. Undisclosed funding sources or conflicts of interest.

  7. Other potential violations of research integrity or publication ethics.

If concerns are identified, the Editorial Team may request clarification, additional documentation, or revisions from the authors. Depending on the seriousness of the issue and the available evidence, the manuscript may be returned for correction, subjected to further investigation, or rejected in accordance with MEDICA's publication ethics policies.

3. Peer Review Model

MEDICA uses a double-blind peer-review process, in which the identities of the authors and reviewers are concealed from each other to the extent reasonably possible throughout the review process.

Authors should ensure that the main manuscript and supplementary files intended for reviewers do not unnecessarily reveal their identities. Reviewers must not attempt to identify the authors or disclose their participation in the review process. Complete anonymity cannot be guaranteed where the research topic, citations, institutional context, or publicly available information may reveal an author's identity.

Manuscripts that pass the initial editorial screening are assigned to qualified reviewers with relevant expertise in the subject area, research methodology, or analytical techniques used in the study.

Normally, at least two independent reviewers are invited to evaluate each manuscript. However, the number of reviewers may vary depending on the manuscript's subject, complexity, and the availability of appropriate expertise. The handling editor may seek additional reviews when the existing reports are insufficient, contradictory, or require specialist assessment.

Reviewers are selected based on their academic qualifications, subject expertise, relevant research experience, and ability to provide an impartial assessment. Individuals with relevant conflicts of interest are not eligible to review the manuscript.

4. Reviewer Responsibilities and Evaluation Criteria

Reviewers are expected to provide independent, objective, constructive, and evidence-based assessments. Their role is to assist the editor in making an informed decision and to help authors improve the quality and clarity of their work.

Reviewers assess manuscripts according to the following criteria:

  1. Originality and novelty: The extent to which the manuscript contributes new findings, perspectives, or insights to medical and health sciences.

  2. Relevance and significance: The importance of the research question and its contribution to scientific knowledge, healthcare, public health, or clinical practice, where applicable.

  3. Research design and methodology: The appropriateness and rigor of the study design, sampling strategy, instruments, procedures, and methodological reporting.

  4. Data quality and analysis: The adequacy of data collection, statistical or qualitative analysis, and the interpretation of the results.

  5. Validity of findings and conclusions: Whether the conclusions are supported by the presented evidence and appropriately acknowledge study limitations.

  6. Literature review and theoretical framework: The adequacy, relevance, and currency of the cited literature and the use of appropriate theoretical or conceptual foundations.

  7. Research ethics: Compliance with applicable ethical standards, including ethics approval, informed consent, privacy, confidentiality, and participant or animal welfare, where relevant.

  8. Presentation and organization: The clarity, logical structure, readability, tables, figures, references, and overall quality of scientific communication.

  9. Transparency and reproducibility: The adequacy of reporting, availability of relevant data or materials where appropriate, and clarity of the methods used.

  10. Publication ethics: Any concerns relating to plagiarism, redundant publication, conflicts of interest, authorship, data integrity, or other potential ethical violations.

Reviewers should provide clear comments that distinguish major scientific concerns from minor editorial suggestions. Criticism must focus on the manuscript and its evidence rather than the authors personally. Reviewers should not recommend citations solely to increase their own citation counts or those of their associates.

5. Editorial Decision

The handling editor evaluates the reviewers' reports together with the manuscript's scientific quality, relevance, and compliance with MEDICA's editorial and ethical requirements.

The possible editorial decisions are:

  1. Accept: The manuscript is accepted for publication without further substantive revision.

  2. Minor Revision: The manuscript requires limited changes, such as clarification, correction, additional explanation, or improvement of presentation, before a final decision.

  3. Major Revision: The manuscript requires substantial changes to its methodology reporting, analysis, interpretation, discussion, or other important aspects before it can be reconsidered.

  4. Reject: The manuscript is not suitable for publication because of insufficient scientific contribution, fundamental methodological weaknesses, lack of relevance, unresolved ethical concerns, or other significant deficiencies.

A decision of major revision does not guarantee acceptance. Revised manuscripts will be evaluated to determine whether the concerns have been adequately addressed.

The final decision rests with the responsible editor or the Editor-in-Chief, based on the reviewers' recommendations and independent editorial judgment. Reviewers provide recommendations but do not make the final publication decision. The editor may request additional reviews or reach a decision that differs from a reviewer's recommendation when justified by the evidence and the journal's policies.

6. Revision Process

When revision is requested, authors must revise their manuscripts in accordance with the editorial decision and reviewer comments. Authors should submit the revised manuscript within the deadline specified in the decision letter.

A revised submission should normally include:

  1. A revised manuscript with all requested changes incorporated.

  2. A point-by-point response to the editor's and reviewers' comments.

  3. A clear explanation for any recommendation that the authors have not adopted, supported by an appropriate scientific justification.

  4. Any additional data, references, documentation, or declarations requested by the editor.

Authors should ensure that all revisions are clearly identifiable when requested by the Editorial Office. If additional time is required, the corresponding author should contact the Editorial Office before the revision deadline and provide a reasonable explanation.

Revised manuscripts may be returned to the original reviewers or assigned to new reviewers when further independent assessment is necessary. The editor will evaluate whether the authors have addressed the major concerns adequately before making a further decision.

Failure to submit a revision within the specified period, without an approved extension, may result in the manuscript being treated as withdrawn from consideration or administratively closed, subject to the journal's procedures. Authors who wish to resubmit a previously rejected manuscript must follow the Editorial Office's instructions; resubmission does not guarantee reconsideration or acceptance.

7. Review Timeline

MEDICA aims to process manuscripts efficiently while maintaining the quality and integrity of editorial assessment. The duration of peer review may vary depending on the manuscript's complexity, reviewer availability, the need for additional assessments, and the time taken by authors to submit revisions.

Authors will be informed of significant editorial decisions through the journal's official submission system or communication channels. The Editorial Office may contact authors if additional information or action is required.

Any review timelines published by MEDICA should be understood as indicative targets rather than guaranteed deadlines. Delays may occur when suitable reviewers are difficult to identify, additional expertise is required, or further investigation is necessary.

8. Reviewer Confidentiality and Conflicts of Interest

Manuscripts submitted for peer review are confidential documents. Reviewers must not share, distribute, quote, or use unpublished information from a manuscript for personal, professional, or research advantage without appropriate authorization.

Reviewers must disclose any actual, potential, or perceived conflicts of interest before accepting an invitation. Conflicts may include financial interests, professional competition, institutional relationships, personal relationships, collaboration with the authors, or other circumstances that could compromise impartiality.

A reviewer who identifies a conflict that may affect their objectivity should decline the invitation or notify the handling editor promptly. Editors must also disclose relevant conflicts and arrange for an independent editor to manage the manuscript when necessary.

The identities of reviewers will not be disclosed to authors under the double-blind review model, except where disclosure is authorized by the journal's procedures or required by applicable law. Review reports and editorial correspondence will be handled confidentially.

9. Editorial Independence and Fairness

MEDICA is committed to editorial independence and fair treatment of all authors. Editorial decisions are based on scientific merit, methodological quality, originality, relevance, research integrity, and compliance with the journal's publication ethics policies.

The journal does not discriminate against authors on the basis of nationality, ethnicity, gender, religion, institutional affiliation, disability, or other characteristics unrelated to the scientific quality and ethical acceptability of the work.

Editors must not allow personal relationships, institutional interests, commercial considerations, funding sources, or external pressure to improperly influence editorial decisions. All manuscripts will be evaluated according to consistent standards appropriate to their research type and subject area.

10. Research Ethics and Publication Integrity

MEDICA expects authors to comply with applicable research ethics standards and to report their research accurately and transparently. For studies involving human participants, identifiable personal data, or animals, authors must provide relevant ethics approval, informed consent, and participant-protection information, where applicable.

The journal may request supporting documentation when the ethical basis of a study requires clarification. Manuscripts involving suspected research misconduct, fabricated or falsified data, plagiarism, duplicate submission, inappropriate authorship practices, or other serious ethical concerns may be suspended from review while the matter is assessed.

Where a concern is substantiated, MEDICA may reject the manuscript or take other appropriate action under its policies on plagiarism, research misconduct, conflicts of interest, and publication ethics. If concerns arise after publication, the journal may consider a correction, an Expression of Concern, or retraction, depending on the circumstances and available evidence.

11. Appeals and Complaints

Authors who believe that an editorial decision resulted from a significant factual error, a misunderstanding of the manuscript, a procedural irregularity, or a relevant conflict of interest may submit a formal appeal to the MEDICA Editorial Office.

An appeal should clearly identify the decision being challenged, explain the grounds for reconsideration, and provide supporting evidence. Disagreement with a negative decision alone is not sufficient grounds for an appeal.

Where reasonably possible, the appeal will be assessed by an editor who was not directly responsible for the original decision or by another independent editorial representative. The journal may maintain the original decision, request further assessment, or revise the decision if the evidence justifies doing so. The outcome will be communicated through the journal's official communication channels.

Complaints regarding reviewer conduct, editorial handling, or peer-review procedures will be assessed fairly and confidentially in accordance with MEDICA's applicable policies and publication ethics principles.

12. Post-Review and Production

Once a manuscript has been accepted, it proceeds to the journal's publication preparation process, which may include copyediting, language editing, reference checking, layout preparation, proofreading, metadata verification, and final technical checks.

Authors may be asked to review proofs and correct production errors within the specified period. Proof corrections should generally be limited to typographical errors, formatting issues, and inaccuracies introduced during production. Substantive changes to the accepted manuscript require editorial approval.

Acceptance does not authorize authors to make major unapproved changes or to submit the same manuscript for publication elsewhere. The article will be published according to MEDICA's publication schedule and applicable publication policies once the required editorial and production steps have been completed.

13. Policy Implementation

MEDICA is committed to maintaining a peer-review process that is rigorous, confidential, impartial, constructive, and consistent with recognized standards of scholarly publishing. The journal may update this policy to reflect developments in peer-review practice, research integrity, publication ethics, and editorial management.

By submitting a manuscript to MEDICA, authors acknowledge that their work is subject to the journal's editorial screening, peer-review procedures, revision requirements, and publication ethics policies. Compliance with these procedures is essential to maintaining the quality, credibility, and integrity of the scientific record.