PEER REVIEW POLICY 

PEER REVIEW POLICY 

(Includes workflow, timelines, responsibilities, transparency, and COPE compliance)

Peer Review Policy

The Link Medical Journal of Health and Community Research (LMJHCR) follows a rigorous double-blind peer review system to ensure the highest standards of scientific integrity, objectivity, and quality.

Both reviewers and authors remain anonymous throughout the review process.

Type of Peer Review

LMJHCR uses:

Double-Blind Peer Review

  • Reviewers do not know the identity of the authors
  • Authors do not know the identity of reviewers
  • Editors ensure anonymity by removing identifying information from manuscripts

Peer Review Workflow (Step-by-Step)

Timelines are approximate and may vary depending on reviewer availability, manuscript complexity, and the number of revision rounds

Step 1 — Initial Submission Check (0–3 days)

The editorial office checks:

  • Scope alignment
  • Completeness of files
  • Plagiarism screening via Turnitin
  • Formatting requirements
  • Ethical compliance (IRB, patient consent if applicable)

Papers failing initial checks are returned to authors.

Step 2 — Editor-in-Chief / Handling Editor Screening (3–7 days)

The editor evaluates:

  • Novelty
  • Scientific quality
  • Ethical compliance
  • Fit with journal’s scope

Outcome:

  • Send for review
  • Request revisions prior to review
  • Decline (desk rejection)

Desk rejection reasons are communicated to authors.

Step 3 — Reviewer Selection (7–10 days)

  • Two independent expert reviewers are invited
  • A third reviewer may be engaged if needed
  • Reviewers must declare COI (Conflict of Interest)

Step 4 — Double-Blind Peer Review (14–21 days)

Reviewers evaluate:

  • Study design and methodology
  • Statistical analysis
  • Scientific validity
  • Clarity, originality, and significance
  • Ethical considerations
  • Integrity of data
  • Literature relevance
  • Quality of presentation

Reviewers provide:

  • Detailed comments for authors
  • Confidential comments to editors
  • A recommendation:
    • Accept
    • Minor revision
    • Major revision
    • Resubmit for review
    • Reject

Step 5 — Editorial Decision (within 5 days of receiving reviews)

The editor synthesizes the reviewer feedback and makes a decision.

Decision letters include:

  • Reviewers’ comments
  • Revision requirements
  • Timeline for resubmission

Step 6 — Revision Process (7–21 days)

Authors must:

  • Address each reviewer comment
  • Provide a “Response to Reviewers” document
  • Submit a tracked-changes version and a clean version

Revised manuscripts may be sent back to reviewers for re-evaluation.

Step 7 — Final Decision (3–7 days)

Based on:

  • Quality of revisions
  • Reviewer recommendations
  • Editorial judgement

Possible outcomes:

  • Accept
  • Accept after minor edits
  • Reject

Step 8 — Production & Publication

Accepted manuscripts undergo:

  • Copyediting
  • Proofreading
  • Typesetting
  • Final author approval
  • Online publication (Ahead of Print)
  • Assignment of DOI

Reviewer Responsibilities

Scientific Responsibilities

Reviewers must:

  • Provide objective and constructive feedback
  • Evaluate methodological soundness
  • Identify ethical concerns or questionable data
  • Highlight missing or inaccurate citations
  • Recommend improvements in clarity and rigor

Ethical Responsibilities

Reviewers must:

  • Maintain confidentiality
  • Declare conflicts of interest
  • Not use manuscript data for personal benefit
  • Follow COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers
  • Report suspected plagiarism or misconduct

AI & Confidentiality
Reviewers must not upload, copy, or disclose any manuscript content (in full or in part) into generative AI tools or third-party automated systems that may compromise confidentiality or intellectual property.

Editorial Responsibilities

Editors must:

  • Ensure fair and unbiased review
  • Maintain confidentiality
  • Make decisions based on scientific merit
  • Handle conflicts of interest transparently
  • Follow COPE Code of Conduct for Journal Editors
  • Manage appeals or complaints professionally

Editorial Independence (Board/Editor Submissions Handling)
Submissions authored by editors, editorial board members, or reviewers are handled through an independent editorial process. Such individuals are excluded from all editorial decisions and access to reviewer identities for manuscripts where a conflict exists. The journal aims to minimize endogeny and maintain editorial independence.

Plagiarism & Ethical Screening

Before review, all submissions undergo:

  • Turnitin plagiarism check
  • Ethical compliance screening (IRB, informed consent)
  • Data integrity checks

Manuscripts with >15% unacceptable similarity may be rejected.

Appeals & Complaints Policy

Authors may appeal editorial decisions by emailing the Editor-in-Chief with justification.

The appeal will be:

  • Reviewed by a senior editor not involved in the initial decision
  • Resolved within 2–4 weeks

Complaints about editorial conduct follow COPE guidelines.

Confidentiality

All submitted manuscripts and reviews are treated as confidential documents.

Information is not shared outside the editorial team and reviewers.

Peer Review Transparency

To maintain transparency:

  • The journal publishes its peer review model on the website
  • Decision categories are clearly stated
  • Review timelines are provided
  • Editorial roles are publicly listed

Special Issues & Guest Editors
For special issues or guest-edited content, LMJHCR applies the same peer review standards and editorial oversight as regular issues. Guest editor submissions are handled independently, and the Editor-in-Chief (or a designated senior editor) retains final responsibility for the integrity and quality of all published content. Special issue articles are clearly labeled.