Peer Review Policy

Frontiers in Medical and Clinical Sciences (FMCS)

eISSN: 2978-3747

1. Introduction & Overview

Frontiers in Medical and Clinical Sciences (FMCS) is committed to maintaining the highest standards of scientific quality, clinical rigor, research integrity, and ethical publishing. Every manuscript submitted to the journal undergoes a fair, objective, rigorous, and confidential peer review process designed to evaluate its originality, scientific merit, clinical relevance, methodological quality, and ethical compliance.

FMCS follows a Double-Blind Peer Review model, in which the identities of both authors and reviewers remain confidential throughout the evaluation process. Editorial decisions are based solely on the scientific quality, clinical applicability, and empirical rigor of the manuscript and are made completely independently of the authors' nationality, institutional affiliation, gender, funding source, or Article Processing Charge (APC) payment status.

2. Purpose of Peer Review

The primary objective of peer review is to ensure that only scientifically sound, clinically safe, ethically conducted, and high-impact medical research is published. The review process helps improve manuscript quality through constructive expert feedback while maintaining the integrity and credibility of the permanent scholarly medical record.

The peer review process aims to:

Evaluate the originality, novelty, and clinical significance of submitted biomedical research.
Assess methodological accuracy, clinical trial designs, and validity of empirical findings.
Verify compliance with human/animal ethics standards (IRB approval, informed consent, Declaration of Helsinki).
Provide constructive, actionable recommendations for improving manuscript quality.
Support fair, transparent, and unbiased editorial decision-making.

3. Double-Blind Peer Review System

FMCS employs a strict Double-Blind Peer Review system. Under this model:

Reviewers do not know the identity, affiliations, or geographical origin of the authors.
Authors do not know the identity of the assigned reviewers.

This approach eliminates potential unconscious bias and promotes impartial evaluation based solely on the scientific merit and clinical significance of the manuscript. All reviewers are expected to evaluate manuscripts objectively, maintain strict confidentiality throughout the process, declare any potential conflicts of interest, and provide clear, evidence-based recommendations.

4. Initial Editorial Screening

Following submission through the official portal, each manuscript undergoes an initial desk evaluation by the Editorial Office before being sent for external peer review.

The initial screening includes assessment of:

Scope Alignment: Relevance to basic medical sciences, clinical medicine, translational research, and healthcare policy.
Completeness: Presence of all required files (title page, anonymized main manuscript, figures, tables, and ethical disclosures).
Formatting Compliance: Adherence to FMCS Author Guidelines and standard medical citation style.
Ethics & Plagiarism: Automated similarity checks via Turnitin / iThenticate to ensure original content (<15% overall similarity threshold) and verification of IRB/ethical board approvals.

Manuscripts that do not satisfy basic editorial criteria, lack mandatory ethical disclosures, or fall outside the journal's scope may be returned for technical revision or desk-rejected prior to external peer review.

5. Reviewer Selection Criteria

After successful desk screening, the manuscript is assigned to independent external reviewers with appropriate clinical qualifications, subject matter expertise, and strong research records in relevant medical and clinical disciplines.

Reviewers are selected based on the following criteria:

Formal academic and clinical qualifications, medical board certifications, or specialized scholarly reputation.
Domain expertise and publication history in the specific medical specialty under review.
Absence of any direct or indirect conflict of interest with the authors or research sponsors.
Ability to provide objective, constructive, and timely peer evaluations.
Commitment to maintaining strict confidentiality throughout the review process.

In all standard cases, each manuscript is evaluated by at least two independent external reviewers.

6. Review Criteria

Reviewers evaluate manuscripts objectively using internationally accepted clinical and scientific standards. During peer review, reviewers assess:

Originality & Significance: Novelty of clinical/scientific questions and potential contribution to medical science or patient care.
Study Design & Methodology: Rigor of clinical trial design, sample size determination, patient selection criteria, experimental controls, and statistical analysis.
Ethical Compliance: Clear documentation of IRB/ethics committee approval, written patient informed consent, and animal care guidelines where applicable.
Results & Discussion: Accuracy of clinical data presentation, statistical testing, and balanced interpretation of diagnostic or therapeutic outcomes.
Clinical Implications: Practical relevance for healthcare providers, clinicians, surgeons, or public health policy.
Structure & Readability: Clarity of medical terminology, logical organization, high-resolution visual data (scans, slides, diagrams), and grammar.
References: Accuracy, recency, and proper formatting of citations with active DOIs.

7. Reviewer Responsibilities

Peer reviewers play a vital role in safeguarding scientific rigor and clinical safety. Invited reviewers are expected to:

Conduct fair, objective, professional, and evidence-based clinical evaluations.
Submit detailed, constructive review reports within the stipulated timeframe.
Treat all manuscript files, patient data, and clinical observations as strictly confidential documents.
Alert the handling editor to any un-cited prior work, suspected plagiarism, data fabrication, un-consented patient data, or ethical breaches.
Recuse themselves immediately if a competing interest or conflict arises.

8. Confidentiality Policy

All manuscripts submitted to FMCS are treated as strictly confidential privileged documents. Editors and reviewers must not disclose, discuss, distribute, or utilize un-published manuscript details, clinical trial data, or patient information for personal research or commercial purposes. Identities of authors and reviewers remain protected under the Double-Blind system throughout the lifecycle of the evaluation.

9. Conflict of Interest

Editors and reviewers must disclose any financial, professional, collaborative, institutional, or personal relationships that could influence, or reasonably be perceived to influence, their evaluation of a manuscript. Reviewers with a conflict of interest are required to decline review invitations immediately.

10. Editorial Decision Process

Following the receipt of reviewer reports, the Handling Editor and Editor-in-Chief evaluate the reports and render one of five formal editorial determinations:

Accept without Revision: The manuscript meets all clinical and publication standards and is accepted with minor editorial polish.
Minor Revision: Authors are requested to address minor textual, visual, or formatting comments prior to final acceptance.
Major Revision: Substantial methodological, statistical, or clinical revisions are required. The revised manuscript is subject to mandatory re-evaluation by the original reviewers.
Reject with Opportunity for Resubmission: The manuscript requires extensive reworking, additional experiments, or clinical trial re-analysis before it can be considered as a new submission.
Reject: The manuscript fails to meet the journal’s scientific, clinical, or ethical standards.

The Editor-in-Chief retains final authority and responsibility for all publication decisions.

11. Revision Process

When revisions are requested, authors must submit:

A revised manuscript version with all text and structural changes highlighted or tracked.
A detailed Point-by-Point Response document explaining how each comment from reviewers and editors was addressed.

Revised manuscripts are re-assessed either by the handling editor or sent back to original reviewers based on the extent of changes made.

12. Editorial Independence & APC Separation

Editorial decisions are completely autonomous and insulated from commercial considerations, pharmaceutical influences, or Article Processing Charge (APC) payments.

Article Processing Charges (APCs) apply only after formal double-blind peer review completion and official editorial acceptance.
Payment of the APC does not influence peer review outcomes, editorial evaluations, or guarantee acceptance.
Acceptance cannot be purchased or accelerated through payment under any circumstances.

13. Appeals and Complaints

Authors who believe an editorial decision was based on a factual misunderstanding or procedural error may submit a formal appeal to the Editorial Office within 14 days of the decision. Appeals must include detailed, evidence-based rebuttals addressing specific reviewer concerns. Appeals are reviewed independently by the Editor-in-Chief.

14. Typical Review Timeline

Stage	Estimated Timeline
Initial Editorial Screening	2–5 Days
Peer Review Process	2–4 Weeks
Author Revision Period	1–3 Weeks
Final Editorial Decision	Within 1 Week post-revision

Note: Timelines serve as general operational targets and may vary based on manuscript complexity, clinical depth, and reviewer availability.

15. Policy Review & Updates

This Peer Review Policy is reviewed annually by the Editorial Board to maintain full alignment with COPE, DOAJ, Scopus, ICMJE, and global Open Science publishing standards.

16. Contact Information

For questions regarding the peer review process, manuscript status, or editorial governance, please contact the Editorial Office:

Editorial Email: editor@irjernet.com