Peer Review Process

MEDICINUS employs a double-blind peer-review process to ensure the quality, integrity, fairness, and impartiality of manuscripts considered for publication. Under this system, the identities of the authors are concealed from the reviewers, and the identities of the reviewers are not disclosed to the authors throughout the peer-review process.

All research manuscripts submitted to MEDICINUS are evaluated by at least two independent reviewers with appropriate expertise in the relevant field. Reviewers are selected based on their academic qualifications, subject expertise, independence, and absence of conflicts of interest with the authors or the submitted work.

The peer-review process is guided by the principles of confidentiality, objectivity, academic integrity, editorial independence, and recognized standards of publication ethics.

Principles of Peer Review

1. Double-Blind Peer Review

MEDICINUS applies a double-blind peer-review system, in which the identities of both the authors and reviewers are concealed from one another.

Authors are required to prepare and submit a blinded manuscript that does not contain names, institutional affiliations, acknowledgments, or other information that could reasonably reveal their identities. Author-identifying information should be provided separately where required by the journal's submission system.

Reviewers are likewise kept anonymous, and their identities are not disclosed to the authors.

2. Independent Peer Review

Each research manuscript is evaluated by at least two independent reviewers with appropriate expertise in the subject area.

Reviewers should not have personal, professional, financial, institutional, or other relationships or interests that could compromise, or reasonably be perceived to compromise, the impartiality of their assessment.

3. Confidentiality

Editors, reviewers, and editorial staff must treat submitted manuscripts, reviewer reports, correspondence, and all associated materials as confidential.

Information, data, ideas, or unpublished findings obtained through the peer-review process must not be disclosed to unauthorized individuals or used for personal, academic, commercial, or professional advantage.

4. Objective and Constructive Evaluation

Reviewers are expected to evaluate manuscripts objectively and provide clear, evidence-based, respectful, and constructive comments.

Reviewer reports should assist editors in reaching an informed editorial decision and help authors improve the scientific quality, clarity, and presentation of their manuscripts.

5. Conflict of Interest

Editors and reviewers must disclose any actual, potential, or perceived conflict of interest that could influence their assessment of a manuscript.

Reviewers with relevant conflicts of interest should decline the review invitation. Editors who have conflicts of interest regarding a submission must recuse themselves from the editorial evaluation and decision-making process, and the manuscript should be assigned to another appropriate editor.

6. Editorial Independence

Editorial decisions are based on the scientific quality, originality, methodological rigor, relevance, ethical integrity, clarity, and contribution of the manuscript to the journal's scope.

Editorial decisions are made independently of commercial, institutional, financial, personal, or other inappropriate influences.

Stages of the Review Process

1. Submission and Technical Screening

Upon submission, the editorial office conducts an initial technical screening to determine whether the manuscript complies with the journal's submission requirements, formatting standards, authorship requirements, ethical policies, and other relevant editorial requirements.

The editorial office also verifies that manuscripts intended for double-blind peer review have been appropriately anonymized.

Manuscripts may undergo plagiarism and similarity screening using Turnitin or other appropriate similarity-detection software.

2. Initial Editorial Assessment

The Editor-in-Chief or a designated editor conducts an initial assessment to determine whether the manuscript falls within the aims and scope of MEDICINUS and meets the minimum standards of scientific quality, originality, ethical integrity, and editorial suitability.

Manuscripts that are clearly outside the journal's scope, do not meet basic scientific or ethical standards, or substantially fail to comply with the journal's requirements may be rejected without external peer review.

3. Assignment to an Editor

Manuscripts considered suitable for further evaluation are assigned to an appropriate handling editor.

The handling editor oversees the peer-review process and is responsible for ensuring that the manuscript is reviewed fairly, independently, confidentially, and in accordance with the journal's double-blind peer-review policy.

4. Reviewer Selection

The handling editor identifies qualified reviewers with expertise relevant to the subject matter of the manuscript.

Each research manuscript is evaluated by at least two independent reviewers.

Reviewer selection takes into consideration subject expertise, academic qualifications, independence, potential conflicts of interest, and the ability to provide an objective and timely assessment.

The identities of the authors are not disclosed to the reviewers, and the identities of the reviewers are not disclosed to the authors.

5. Double-Blind Peer Review

Reviewers evaluate manuscripts according to criteria including scientific validity, originality, methodological rigor, clarity of presentation, ethical integrity, appropriateness of statistical analysis where applicable, interpretation of findings, relevance to the field, and overall contribution to the scientific literature.

Reviewers provide recommendations to the handling editor together with constructive comments for the authors.

Reviewer recommendations are advisory. The final editorial decision remains the responsibility of the Editor-in-Chief or designated handling editor.

Throughout the process, MEDICINUS maintains the double-blind principle, whereby authors and reviewers remain unaware of each other's identities.

6. Author Revision

When revisions are requested, authors are expected to address the reviewers' and editors' comments systematically and provide a point-by-point response explaining how each comment has been addressed.

Authors should maintain appropriate anonymization of the revised manuscript and response documents to preserve the integrity of the double-blind review process.

Depending on the extent of the revisions, the revised manuscript may be returned to the original reviewers or evaluated further by the handling editor.

More than one round of revision may be required.

7. Editorial Decision

After considering the reviewers' evaluations, the scientific merits of the manuscript, and the authors' responses to previous comments, the editor makes an editorial decision.

Possible decisions include:

Accept: The manuscript is suitable for publication without substantial further revision.
Minor Revision: The manuscript requires limited revisions before a final decision can be made.
Major Revision: Substantial revisions are required, and the revised manuscript will undergo further editorial and/or peer-review evaluation.
Resubmit: The manuscript requires fundamental changes and may be reconsidered as a substantially revised submission.
Reject: The manuscript is not considered suitable for publication in MEDICINUS and will not proceed further in the editorial process.

A request for revision does not constitute acceptance. Final acceptance is granted only after the editors are satisfied that the manuscript has adequately addressed the scientific, methodological, ethical, and editorial concerns identified during the review process.

8. Final Acceptance and Publication

Once a manuscript has been formally accepted, it proceeds to the production process, which may include copyediting, proofreading, layout preparation, metadata verification, and final publication.

Authors may be asked to review article proofs before publication. Changes at the proof stage should generally be limited to the correction of production errors, typographical errors, or other necessary minor corrections.

Ethical Standards for Peer Review

MEDICINUS expects editors and reviewers to uphold recognized principles of publication ethics throughout the peer-review process.

Reviewers must provide impartial, professional, and respectful assessments; maintain the confidentiality of submitted materials; disclose relevant conflicts of interest; and refrain from using unpublished information obtained through peer review for their own research, professional, financial, or personal benefit.

Editors are responsible for protecting the confidentiality and integrity of the double-blind peer-review process.

Any allegations or indications of research misconduct, publication misconduct, plagiarism, data fabrication or falsification, inappropriate authorship, undisclosed conflicts of interest, or other ethical concerns identified during peer review will be evaluated in accordance with the journal's publication ethics and research integrity policies.

Plagiarism and Similarity Screening

Submitted manuscripts may be screened for plagiarism and inappropriate text similarity using Turnitin or other appropriate similarity-detection software.

Similarity reports are evaluated by the editorial team in context and are not used as the sole basis for determining whether plagiarism or other forms of publication misconduct have occurred.

Where significant concerns are identified, the editorial team may request clarification or revision from the authors or take other appropriate editorial action in accordance with the journal's publication ethics policies.

Peer Review Process