Editorial Process

Editorial Process

  1. Journal Policy and Editorial Independence

The Asian Journal of Medical Research & Health Sciences (A-JMRHS) operates under full editorial independence. All editorial decisions are made exclusively by the Editor-in-Chief, supported by the Editorial Board. The publisher has no influence on editorial decisions, peer review outcomes, or acceptance/rejection of manuscripts.

  1. Submission and Initial Quality Check

All manuscripts are submitted through the journal’s official submission channel. Upon receipt, each manuscript undergoes an initial editorial assessment (desk evaluation) to verify:

  • Relevance to the journal’s stated aims and scope
  • Originality and novelty of the work
  • Compliance with ethical standards (human/animal ethics, consent, declarations)
  • Adherence to author guidelines and completeness of submission
  • Basic scientific quality and language clarity

Manuscripts failing to meet these criteria are desk-rejected without external review.

  1. Peer Review Model

The journal employs a double-blind peer review process, in which:

  • Reviewer and author identities are concealed
  • Each manuscript is reviewed by a minimum of two independent external reviewers
  • Reviewers are selected based on subject expertise, publication record, and absence of conflicts of interest

This process ensures objectivity, fairness, and scientific rigor, in line with Scopus standards.

  1. Reviewer Selection and Ethics

Reviewers are identified and invited by the Handling Editor or Editor-in-Chief. Selection is based on:

  • Subject-matter expertise
  • Research and publication experience
  • Institutional affiliation and academic standing

All reviewers are required to declare conflicts of interest and adhere to confidentiality and ethical review practices.

  1. Evaluation Criteria

Reviewers assess manuscripts based on:

  • Scientific soundness and methodological rigor
  • Originality and contribution to the field
  • Relevance to the journal’s scope
  • Ethical compliance
  • Clarity of presentation and references

Reviewer recommendations include: accept, minor revision, major revision, or reject.

  1. Editorial Decision-Making

Reviewer reports are critically assessed by the Handling Editor and Editor-in-Chief.
In cases of conflicting reviewer opinions, the Editor-in-Chief may:

  • Request additional revisions
  • Seek an additional independent review

The Editor-in-Chief makes the final decision on acceptance or rejection.

  1. Revision Process

Authors receiving revision requests must submit:

  • A revised manuscript
  • A detailed point-by-point response to reviewer comments

Revised manuscripts are evaluated by the editor and, where required, returned to reviewers for further assessment.

  1. Final Acceptance and Publication

Accepted manuscripts undergo:

  • Copyediting and formatting
  • Metadata validation
  • DOI assignment
  • Online publication

All published articles are permanently accessible and citable.

  1. Transparency and Accountability
  • Editorial policies are publicly available on the journal website
  • Peer review processes are clearly described
  • Editorial roles and responsibilities are defined and disclosed
  • Ethical issues, corrections, and retractions are handled according to international best practices