Peer Review Process

Peer Review Process
Medical Science Journal for Advance Research (MSJAR)

Medical Science Journal for Advance Research maintains the standards of double-blind peer review while increasing the efficiency of the review process.

Full Peer Review

All research articles published in the Medical Science Journal for Advance Research undergo full peer review. The key characteristics of the process are:

1
All research articles are reviewed by at least two suitably qualified experts.
2
All publication decisions are made by the Editors-in-Chief based on the reviews provided.
3
Members of the advisory and international Editorial Boards lend insight, advice, and guidance to the Editors-in-Chief and assist decision-making on specific submissions.
4
Managing Editors and Editorial Assistants provide the administrative support necessary to maintain the integrity of peer review while delivering rapid turnaround and efficiency to authors, reviewers, and editors.
5
Medical Science Journal for Advance Research additionally benefits through the manuscript referral process from high-quality peer review conducted by established journals.
Peer Review of Referred Papers

Editors of the Medical Science Journal for Advance Research will decide promptly whether to accept, reject, or request revisions of referred papers based on the reviews and editorial insight of the supporting journals.

Editors may seek additional reviews when needed. Authors will be advised when Editors decide that further review is required.

Peer Review of Novel Submissions

Articles submitted directly to the Medical Science Journal for Advance Research will be thoroughly peer-reviewed by at least two appropriately qualified experts in the field selected by the Editor-in-Chief.

The Editor-in-Chief will then decide whether to accept, reject, or request revisions based on the reviews and comments received.

The Editor-in-Chief will decide whether each submission reports well-conducted research with conclusions supported by the data presented in the paper.

Assessments of priority will not be a factor in decision-making, but all articles must make an incremental or novel addition to the literature.

Transparent and Rigorous Peer Review
Double-blind review • At least two reviewers • Editorial decision