Peer Review Policy

Peer Review Policy and Process

1. Purpose of the Policy

The Ghurki Journal of Medical and Health Sciences (GJMHS) operates a structured, independent and confidential peer-review system to ensure that manuscripts are evaluated fairly and on the basis of their scientific quality.

The peer-review process is intended to assess:

• Scientific validity and methodological quality
• Originality and relevance
• Ethical compliance
• Accuracy and completeness of reporting
• Appropriateness of statistical analysis
• Reliability of results and conclusions
• Contribution to medical and health sciences
• Compliance with the journal’s aims, scope and author guidelines

Editorial and peer-review decisions are based solely on academic merit. An author’s nationality, gender, institutional affiliation, professional status, personal beliefs or ability to pay publication charges does not influence the decision.

2. Peer-Review Model

GJMHS follows a double-blind peer-review model.

Under this model:

• Reviewers are not informed of the authors’ identities.
• Authors are not informed of the reviewers’ identities.
• The manuscript submitted for review must not contain author names, affiliations, acknowledgements or other identifying information.
• Reviewer identities are kept confidential and are not disclosed to authors or third parties, except where disclosure is required by law or formally authorized by the reviewer and journal.

The purpose of double-blind review is to reduce conscious and unconscious bias and support an impartial assessment of the manuscript.

The editorial office takes reasonable steps to preserve anonymity. However, complete anonymity cannot be guaranteed where authors reveal their identity through self-citation, trial registration information, preprints or other publicly available material.

3. Scope of Peer Review

The following manuscript types are normally subject to external peer review:

• Original research articles
• Systematic reviews and meta-analyses
• Narrative and scoping reviews
• Short communications
• Case reports and case series
• Clinical studies
• Public health and epidemiological studies
• Medical education research
• Other scholarly submissions considered suitable by the Editor

Editorials, invited commentaries, letters, corrections, obituaries and journal announcements may be assessed internally or externally at the Editor-in-Chief’s discretion.

All externally submitted research manuscripts are subject to editorial screening before peer review.

4. Editorial Independence

Editorial decisions are made independently of:

• The publisher
• Journal management
• Sponsors and advertisers
• Authors’ institutional positions
• Publication-fee payments
• Personal or professional relationships
• Commercial or political interests

The publisher does not interfere with reviewer selection, reviewer recommendations or final editorial decisions.

The final responsibility for accepting or rejecting a manuscript rests with the Editor-in-Chief or an authorized editor who has no conflict of interest in the manuscript.

5. Stages of the Peer-Review Process

Stage 1: Submission Through OJS

Authors must submit their manuscripts through the journal’s Online Journal System (OJS).

At submission, authors are required to provide:

• An anonymized manuscript
• A separate title page
• Complete author metadata
• Ethical approval information, where applicable
• Informed-consent statements, where applicable
• Conflict-of-interest declaration
• Funding statement
• Author contribution statement
• Required reporting checklist
• Supplementary documents and forms

Submissions through personal email or unofficial communication channels are not accepted.

Stage 2: Administrative Completeness Check

The editorial office checks whether:

• All required files have been submitted.
• The manuscript is properly anonymized.
• Author information and metadata are complete.
• Tables, figures and references are appropriately presented.
• Required declarations and ethical documents are available.
• The manuscript generally follows the journal’s formatting requirements.

Incomplete submissions may be returned to the corresponding author for technical correction before editorial assessment.

Stage 3: Initial Editorial Screening

The Editor-in-Chief, Managing Editor or designated editor conducts an initial assessment to determine whether the manuscript:

• Falls within the journal’s aims and scope
• Has adequate scientific and academic merit
• Presents an appropriate research question
• Uses a generally suitable study design
• Complies with basic ethical and reporting requirements
• Is sufficiently clear and complete for peer review
• Follows the journal’s authorship and publication policies
• Contains material suitable for consideration by GJMHS

The manuscript may receive one of the following outcomes at this stage:

1. Proceed to peer review
2. Return for technical correction
3. Return for preliminary revision
4. Desk rejection

A manuscript may be desk-rejected when it:

• Falls outside the journal’s scope
• Does not meet minimum scientific standards
• Contains serious methodological deficiencies
• Lacks required ethical approval
• Shows evidence of plagiarism or duplicate publication
• Is substantially incomplete
• Does not comply with the journal’s policies
• Is unsuitable for external peer review

The journal aims to communicate an initial screening decision within 5–7 working days, although additional time may be required for complex ethical or technical assessment.

Stage 4: Similarity and Research-Integrity Screening

Manuscripts considered suitable for further assessment are screened using similarity-detection software.

The similarity report is evaluated by the editorial team. Decisions are not made solely on the basis of the numerical similarity percentage. The editor considers:

• The source of matched text
• The amount and location of overlap
• Proper quotation and citation
• Methodological terminology
• Possible plagiarism
• Self-plagiarism or text recycling
• Duplicate or redundant publication

Where concerns arise, the manuscript may be:

• Returned to the authors for clarification or correction
• Referred for further editorial assessment
• Rejected
• Investigated under the journal’s publication-ethics procedures

Similarity screening may be repeated after revision and before final publication.

Stage 5: Assignment to a Handling Editor

A manuscript that passes initial screening is assigned to an Associate Editor, Subject Editor or other qualified Handling Editor.

The editor is selected according to:

• Subject expertise
• Academic qualifications
• Editorial experience
• Knowledge of the research methodology
• Absence of financial, professional, institutional or personal conflicts of interest

The Handling Editor manages the review process, selects reviewers, evaluates reviewer reports and makes a recommendation or decision within the limits of delegated authority.

An editor with a conflict of interest must decline responsibility for the manuscript. The submission will then be reassigned to another qualified editor.

Stage 6: Selection of Peer Reviewers

Each research manuscript is normally evaluated by at least two independent reviewers with appropriate expertise.

Reviewers are selected on the basis of:

• Relevant subject knowledge
• Appropriate academic or professional qualifications
• Research and publication experience
• Experience with the study design or methodology
• Ability to provide a timely and constructive review
• Absence of conflicts of interest
• Previous reviewing performance, where known

Reviewers should not ordinarily be selected when they:

• Work in the same department or institution as an author
• Have a recent close collaboration with an author
• Have a personal, professional or financial relationship that may influence judgment
• Have a competitive interest in the research
• Are directly involved in the work being evaluated
• Are unable to provide an independent assessment

The journal may consider reviewer suggestions provided by authors but is not required to invite suggested reviewers.

Authors may request the exclusion of particular reviewers by providing a valid reason. The final selection remains the responsibility of the editor.

Stage 7: Reviewer Invitation and Acceptance

Selected reviewers receive an invitation containing sufficient information to determine whether they:

• Have the relevant expertise
• Can complete the review within the required period
• Have any conflict of interest
• Can maintain confidentiality

Before accepting the review, reviewers must declare any potential conflict of interest.

A reviewer who lacks appropriate expertise, cannot meet the deadline or has a conflict of interest must decline the invitation promptly.

Stage 8: Double-Blind External Peer Review

Reviewers assess the anonymized manuscript independently.

The review should address:

Scientific and methodological quality

• Clarity of the research question and objectives
• Appropriateness of the study design
• Adequacy of sample size and sampling methods
• Validity of data-collection procedures
• Appropriateness of statistical analysis
• Accuracy and completeness of results
• Consistency between results and conclusions
• Recognition of limitations
• Reproducibility of the methods

Originality and relevance

• Original contribution to knowledge
• Relevance to the journal’s scope
• Clinical, academic or public-health importance
• Appropriate engagement with existing literature

Ethical compliance

• Ethical-review approval
• Informed consent
• Protection of participant confidentiality
• Appropriate trial registration, where applicable
• Ethical handling of human, animal or sensitive data
• Disclosure of funding and conflicts of interest

Reporting quality

• Appropriate title and abstract
• Logical structure
• Clear methods and results
• Adequate tables and figures
• Appropriate discussion and conclusions
• Accurate and relevant references
• Compliance with applicable reporting guidelines, such as CONSORT, STROBE, PRISMA or CARE

Presentation

• Clarity and readability
• Logical organization
• Appropriate scientific language
• Absence of unsupported or exaggerated claims

Reviewers should distinguish between essential scientific revisions and optional suggestions.

6. Reviewer Responsibilities

Reviewers must:

• Maintain confidentiality throughout and after the review
• Evaluate the manuscript objectively
• Provide clear, constructive and evidence-based comments
• Identify significant methodological, statistical or ethical concerns
• Avoid personal or offensive remarks
• Declare all potential conflicts of interest
• Complete the review within the agreed timeframe
• Inform the editor if additional expertise is required
• Identify relevant uncited literature where appropriate
• Report suspected plagiarism, data fabrication, duplicate publication or other misconduct
• Avoid using unpublished information for personal benefit

Reviewers must not:

• Share the manuscript with unauthorized persons
• Contact authors directly
• Disclose manuscript content
• Use manuscript ideas or data for their own research
• Delay a review for personal or competitive advantage
• Request unnecessary citation of their own publications
• Attempt to influence authors for personal benefit
• Discriminate on the basis of gender, nationality, ethnicity, institution, seniority, religion, disability or personal beliefs

A reviewer wishing to consult a colleague must obtain prior permission from the editor. Any person who contributes to the review must be identified to the journal.

7. Use of Artificial Intelligence by Reviewers

Reviewers must not upload confidential manuscripts, figures, tables, data or supplementary material to publicly accessible generative artificial-intelligence tools.

Reviewers remain fully responsible for the accuracy, confidentiality and integrity of their reports.

Any permitted use of an artificial-intelligence tool must comply with the journal’s confidentiality and data-protection requirements and should be disclosed to the editor where relevant.

Artificial intelligence must not replace the reviewer’s independent expert judgment.

8. Confidentiality of the Review Process

Submitted manuscripts are confidential documents.

Editors and reviewers must not:

• Disclose manuscript content
• Share unpublished findings
• Discuss the manuscript outside the authorized editorial process
• Use information obtained through peer review for personal advantage
• Retain manuscript files unnecessarily after completing the review

Editorial files, review reports and correspondence are accessible only to authorized journal personnel.

Reviewer reports may be shared with other reviewers involved in the same manuscript where this is necessary for editorial assessment, but reviewer identities remain confidential.

9. Conflict-of-Interest Management

Editors and reviewers must disclose any relationship or interest that could influence, or reasonably appear to influence, their assessment.

Potential conflicts include:

• Recent collaboration with an author
• Employment at the same institution
• Supervisory or student relationships
• Financial interests
• Personal relationships
• Academic rivalry
• Direct competition
• Strong intellectual or ideological disagreement
• Involvement in the submitted research

Where a significant conflict exists:

• The reviewer must decline the review.
• The editor must recuse themselves.
• The manuscript must be reassigned.

Failure to disclose a relevant conflict may result in removal from the reviewer or editorial database and further action under the journal’s ethics policy.

10. Peer-Review Timeline

Reviewers are normally requested to submit their reports within 3–4 weeks.

A reasonable extension may be granted when:

• The reviewer requests additional time before the deadline
• The manuscript is technically complex
• Specialist statistical or methodological assessment is required

Reviewers who cannot complete the review should inform the journal promptly.

The journal may invite a replacement reviewer when:

• An invitation is declined
• A reviewer does not respond
• The review is substantially delayed
• The submitted report is inadequate
• A conflict of interest becomes apparent

The journal aims to process manuscripts efficiently but cannot guarantee a fixed decision or publication date.

11. Reviewer Recommendations

Reviewers may recommend:

Recommendation	Meaning
Accept	The manuscript is suitable for publication with no substantive revision.
Minor revision	Limited corrections, clarifications or improvements are required.
Major revision	Substantial changes to methods, analysis, reporting or interpretation are required.
Resubmit for review	The manuscript requires extensive revision and another full review cycle.
Reject	The manuscript has major deficiencies or is unsuitable for publication.

Reviewer recommendations are advisory. The editor is not required to follow a recommendation when it is unsupported, inconsistent with journal policy or contradicted by the available evidence.

12. Editorial Decision

The Handling Editor evaluates:

• Reviewer reports
• Scientific quality of the manuscript
• Ethical compliance
• Relevance to the journal
• Consistency and strength of reviewer comments
• Authors’ responses to previous revisions
• Compliance with journal policies

The editorial decision may be:

• Accept
• Minor revision
• Major revision
• Resubmit for peer review
• Reject

The corresponding author receives the decision letter and anonymized reviewer comments through OJS.

The Editor-in-Chief or authorized editor has final responsibility for the decision.

An invitation to revise does not guarantee acceptance.

13. Conflicting or Inadequate Reviewer Reports

When reviewer recommendations differ substantially, the Handling Editor may:

• Evaluate the reports and reach an independent decision
• Request clarification from one or both reviewers
• Invite an additional reviewer
• Seek specialist statistical or methodological assessment
• Refer the manuscript to another editor

A third reviewer is not appointed automatically in every case. The editor determines whether an additional opinion is necessary.

A reviewer report may be disregarded where it:

• Contains inappropriate or discriminatory comments
• Lacks meaningful scientific assessment
• Shows a conflict of interest
• Breaches confidentiality
• Makes unsupported recommendations
• Includes coercive citation requests
• Fails to address the manuscript’s content adequately

14. Revision by Authors

Authors receiving a revision decision must submit:

• A clean revised manuscript
• A tracked-changes or highlighted version, where requested
• A detailed point-by-point response to reviewers
• Revised tables, figures or supplementary files
• Updated declarations or ethical documents, where applicable

The response letter should:

1. Reproduce each reviewer comment.
2. State whether the comment was addressed.
3. Explain the change made.
4. Identify the relevant page, paragraph or line.
5. Provide an academic justification where a suggested change was not made.

Indicative revision periods are:

• Minor revision: normally 7–14 days
• Major revision: normally 21–45 days

Authors requiring additional time should request an extension before the deadline.

Failure to submit a satisfactory revision may result in rejection or closure of the submission.

15. Re-Review of Revised Manuscripts

Revised manuscripts may be assessed by:

• The Handling Editor
• One or both original reviewers
• An additional reviewer
• A statistical or methodological reviewer

Minor revisions may be assessed by the editor without further external review.

Major revisions will normally be returned to the original reviewers when further expert assessment is required.

More than one round of revision may be requested.

16. Final Acceptance

A manuscript may be accepted when the responsible editor is satisfied that:

• The scientific concerns have been adequately addressed.
• The methodology and reporting are acceptable.
• Ethical requirements have been fulfilled.
• The authors have responded appropriately to reviewer comments.
• The conclusions are supported by the results.
• Required declarations and documentation are complete.
• The manuscript complies with journal policies.

A formal acceptance letter is issued through the journal’s official system.

Publication charges, where applicable, are communicated only after formal acceptance and do not influence the editorial decision.

17. Post-Acceptance Processing

After acceptance, the manuscript enters the production process, which may include:

• Copyediting
• Language and technical correction
• Reference verification
• Formatting
• Figure and table checking
• Typesetting
• DOI and metadata preparation
• Author proofreading
• Final publication approval

The corresponding author receives the proof for checking and should normally return corrections within 48–72 hours.

Only minor corrections are normally permitted at the proof stage. Substantive changes to authorship, data, results or conclusions require editorial approval and adequate justification.

The article is published after completion of all editorial, ethical, administrative and production requirements.

18. Appeals Against Editorial Decisions

Authors may appeal an editorial decision when they believe that:

• A factual or methodological error affected the decision.
• Reviewer comments were seriously misunderstood.
• A relevant conflict of interest was not recognized.
• The review process was procedurally unfair.

An appeal must:

• Be submitted by the corresponding author
• Identify the manuscript number and title
• Explain the grounds for appeal clearly
• Address the scientific reasons for reconsideration
• Avoid personal criticism of editors or reviewers

An appeal does not guarantee reversal of the decision.

The appeal will be considered by the Editor-in-Chief or another independent editor who was not substantially involved in the original decision. The journal’s decision following appeal is final.

19. Complaints About Peer Review

Complaints concerning reviewer conduct, confidentiality, bias, delays, conflicts of interest or editorial handling should be submitted in writing to the journal.

The complaint should include:

• Manuscript identification number
• Description of the concern
• Relevant correspondence or evidence
• Desired resolution

Complaints are handled confidentially and, where appropriate, independently of the person whose conduct is being questioned.

20. Suspected Misconduct During Peer Review

Where editors or reviewers identify possible:

• Plagiarism
• Fabrication or falsification
• Image manipulation
• Duplicate publication
• Undisclosed conflict of interest
• Unethical research
• Authorship manipulation
• Peer-review manipulation
• Citation manipulation

the journal may suspend the review process and request clarification or evidence from the authors.

Depending on the seriousness of the concern, the journal may:

• Reject the manuscript
• Contact the authors’ institution
• Contact an ethics committee or relevant authority
• Correct or retract a published article
• Restrict future submissions
• Remove an editor or reviewer from the journal database

Allegations are assessed fairly, confidentially and on the basis of available evidence.

21. Peer-Review Manipulation

GJMHS does not tolerate attempts to manipulate the peer-review process.

Prohibited practices include:

• Providing false reviewer identities
• Providing fabricated reviewer email addresses
• Impersonating a reviewer
• Attempting to influence reviewer selection improperly
• Creating fraudulent reviewer accounts
• Interfering with editorial communications
• Submitting fabricated review reports

Where manipulation is suspected, the manuscript may be rejected and further action may be taken under the journal’s publication-ethics policy.

22. Review of Manuscripts Submitted by Editors

Manuscripts submitted by editorial-board members, editors or persons closely associated with the journal are not given preferential treatment.

Such manuscripts are:

• Assigned to an independent editor
• Processed without involvement of the submitting editor
• Subject to the same screening and peer-review requirements
• Evaluated on scientific merit
• Managed with appropriate conflict-of-interest safeguards

The submitting editor will not have access to confidential reviewer information or participate in the decision.

23. Reviewer Recognition and Records

GJMHS maintains confidential records of:

• Reviewer invitations
• Acceptance or decline of invitations
• Review reports
• Review completion dates
• Declared conflicts of interest
• Editorial decisions
• Reviewer performance and timeliness

Reviewer contributions may be acknowledged periodically without linking individual reviewers to particular manuscripts unless the reviewer has provided permission.

Confidential review records are retained according to the journal’s record-management policy.

24. Policy Review and Amendment

This Peer Review Policy is reviewed periodically to ensure that it remains consistent with:

• The journal’s editorial practices
• Applicable ethical requirements
• Developments in scholarly publishing
• Relevant national and international guidance

Any amendment will be approved by the journal’s authorized editorial management and published on the journal website with the effective date.

Important Corrections Before Uploading This Policy

Do not publish claims unless the journal can provide evidence that they are operational:

Existing wording	Recommended action
“Professional language editing”	Use “copyediting and language correction” unless a professional editing service is formally available.
“Published as Online First immediately”	Retain only when GJMHS actually has an Online First system.
“Monthly or biannual issue”	Choose one confirmed publication frequency. Do not mention both.
“Archived with LOCKSS and CLOCKSS”	Retain only if the journal is formally enrolled in these services. Otherwise state “archived through the journal’s approved digital-preservation arrangements.”
“Ethics Editor conducts review”	Retain only if an officially designated Ethics Editor is listed on the editorial board.
“Minimum reviewer qualification”	Apply the criterion consistently and maintain evidence in reviewer records.
“Desk rejection within 5–7 days”	Publish it as an aim rather than a guarantee unless records demonstrate consistent compliance.