Peer Review System
Peer Review Policy
Avicenna Journal of Medical Sciences (AJMS) operates a double-anonymized peer-review process for research and review manuscripts. The identities of authors and reviewers are concealed from one another throughout the peer-review process.
Initial Editorial Assessment
All submitted manuscripts undergo an initial assessment by the editorial office to determine their:
- relevance to the journal’s aims and scope;
- originality and scientific contribution;
- methodological and ethical appropriateness;
- compliance with journal requirements; and
- overall suitability for external peer review.
Manuscripts that are clearly outside the journal’s scope or do not meet minimum scientific, ethical, or editorial standards may be declined without external review.
External Peer Review
Manuscripts considered suitable for further evaluation are normally sent to at least two independent reviewers with relevant subject expertise.
Reviewers are asked to assess the manuscript objectively, including its scientific validity, originality, methodology, interpretation of findings, ethical considerations, clarity of reporting, and relevance to the field.
Reviewers provide recommendations to assist the editors; however, reviewer recommendations are advisory and do not determine the final editorial decision.
Confidentiality
Manuscripts submitted to AJMS are treated as confidential documents. Editors and reviewers must not disclose, distribute, or use unpublished information obtained through the peer-review process for personal or professional advantage.
Conflicts of Interest
Reviewers and editors must disclose any actual, potential, or perceived conflict of interest that could affect their impartiality.
Where a significant conflict exists, the reviewer or editor will not participate in the assessment or decision-making process for that manuscript.
Editorial Decisions
Following peer review, a manuscript may receive one of the following decisions:
- Accept
- Minor Revision
- Major Revision
- Reject
Where revisions are requested, authors should respond systematically to reviewer and editor comments and clearly identify changes made to the manuscript.
Revised manuscripts may be returned to the original reviewers or assessed by the handling editor, depending on the nature and extent of the revisions.
Final Decision
The final decision regarding publication rests with the Editor-in-Chief or an appropriately delegated editor, based on the manuscript’s scientific quality, ethical compliance, relevance, peer-review reports, and responses to revision.
Editorial decisions are made independently of commercial considerations, publication charges, institutional affiliations, nationality, or other non-academic factors.
Editorial Board Submissions
Manuscripts submitted by editors or Editorial Board members are handled independently of the submitting editor. Such individuals do not participate in the selection of reviewers or editorial decision-making for their own manuscripts.
Research Integrity
Where concerns regarding plagiarism, duplicate publication, data integrity, authorship, ethical approval, image manipulation, or other forms of research or publication misconduct arise during peer review, the journal will investigate the matter in accordance with its Research and Publication Ethics Policy and relevant guidance from the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).
Peer-Review Records
AJMS maintains appropriate records of editorial assessments, reviewer reports, author responses, and editorial decisions within its journal management system.
