Peer Review Policy
Our Commitment to Quality
Anfo Publications is committed to ensuring the integrity of the peer review process for all submitted manuscripts. Our peer review process is rigorous, fair, and transparent.
1. Peer Review Process
All submitted manuscripts undergo a double-blind peer review process, where both the identities of the authors and the reviewers are kept confidential. This ensures unbiased evaluation based solely on the merit of the work.
Upon submission, the manuscript is first assessed by the editorial team to ensure it aligns with the journal's scope and meets basic quality criteria. If deemed suitable, it is then sent to two or more independent experts in the relevant field for review.
Reviewers assess the manuscript for the following:
- Originality and novelty of the research
- Scientific quality and rigor
- Clarity and coherence of the presentation
- Relevance to the field of medical and health research
- Ethical considerations, including appropriate approval for human and animal research, informed consent, and data integrity
- Accuracy of references and citations
2. Reviewer Selection
Reviewers are selected based on their expertise in the subject matter of the manuscript. The editorial team ensures that the chosen reviewers have relevant academic or professional experience and are impartial and qualified to evaluate the research.
The journal seeks reviewers who are experts in the medical and health sciences and can offer constructive feedback to enhance the quality of the submitted work.
3. Reviewer Responsibilities
Reviewers are expected to provide a thorough, objective, and timely evaluation of the manuscript. Feedback should be constructive and aimed at improving the quality of the research. Reviewers are expected to highlight any concerns regarding the validity of the data, ethical issues, or flaws in methodology.
Reviewers must disclose any conflicts of interest to the editorial team before accepting the assignment. They are expected to maintain confidentiality about the manuscript and should not share, discuss, or use the content of the paper before it is published.
4. Decision and Feedback
After receiving reviews, the editorial team will make a decision regarding the manuscript. Possible decisions include:
- Accept: The manuscript is accepted without any revisions or with minor revisions.
- Minor Revisions: The manuscript requires minor changes before it can be accepted for publication.
- Major Revisions: The manuscript requires substantial revisions before it can be reconsidered for publication.
- Reject: The manuscript is not suitable for publication in the journal.
Authors will receive constructive feedback from the reviewers along with the editor's decision, and they will be given the opportunity to revise and resubmit the manuscript based on the reviewers' comments.
5. Ethical Guidelines
The International Journal of Medical and All Body Health Research adheres to ethical guidelines established by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). In case of any unethical behavior, such as plagiarism or manipulation of data, the manuscript will be rejected, and the authors may be banned from submitting to the journal in the future.
The peer review process is conducted with the utmost respect for confidentiality and impartiality. All parties involved, including reviewers, authors, and editors, must abide by ethical standards to maintain the integrity of the academic publishing process.
6. Transparency and Appeal
The journal aims to maintain transparency in its peer review process. Authors who wish to appeal a decision can do so by submitting a formal appeal to the editorial board, explaining their concerns about the review process or decision.
The editorial board will review the appeal and make a final decision, which may include seeking additional reviews or providing further clarification to the authors.
7. Review Timeliness
The journal strives to complete the peer review process within 4-6 weeks of receiving a manuscript. Reviewers are expected to provide feedback within 3 weeks of receiving the manuscript, although this may vary depending on the complexity of the review.