PEER REVIEW PROCESS

The Journal of the Nepal Medical Association (JNMA) follows a structured, transparent, and ethical peer review system in accordance with international standards, including those of Committee on Publication Ethics, ICMJE, WAME, and Council of Science Editors.

All manuscripts submitted to the Journal undergo multiple stages of assessment, including preliminary screening, ethical review, methodological screening and editorial evaluation, prior to being considered for external peer review. These procedures are designed to ensure compliance with the Journal’s scope, editorial policies, ethical standards, and publication requirements.

Following successful completion of the initial screening and editorial assessment process, manuscripts proceed to external peer review.

While this process may appear time-consuming to authors,they are fundamental to upholding the highest standards of integrity, ethical conduct, quality, and transparency in scientific publishing.

1 Peer Review Model

JNMA uses a double-blind peer review system, where both authors and reviewers remain anonymous to each other throughout the review process.

Most manuscripts undergo a single-stage peer review process. A two-stage review process may be used in selected cases where significant revision is required before final evaluation.

Two-stage review is generally applied when:

• Major methodological revisions are required
• Statistical analysis is unclear or needs revalidation
• Ethical concerns require clarification
• The manuscript requires substantial restructuring

2 Reviewer Selection and Assignment

• Reviewers are selected by the editorial team based on subject expertise.
• Each manuscript is typically assigned to two independent reviewers.
• Reviewers are expected to have relevant academic or clinical expertise in the manuscript’s subject area.
• In case of conflicting reviewer recommendations, a third independent reviewer may be assigned.
• Reviewer identities are strictly confidential and managed through the journal’s editorial system (OJS).

3 Reviewer Responsibilities

Peer reviewers act as independent scientific advisors and are expected to:

• Evaluate the scientific validity and originality of the manuscript
• Assess methodological rigor and appropriateness of study design
• Check clarity, structure, and logical flow of the manuscript
• Evaluate ethical compliance and integrity of the research
• Identify strengths and limitations of the work
• Provide constructive and evidence-based feedback for improvement

Reviewers do not make editorial decisions; their role is advisory.

4 Review Process Flow

Once a manuscript is assigned:

• A review invitation is sent via the editorial system (OJS).
• Abstract and relevant details are shared for acceptance of review.
• Upon acceptance, a blinded full manuscript and review guidelines are provided.
• Reviewers complete their evaluation within the designated timeframe.
• Reviewer comments are submitted separately for:
  • Authors (constructive feedback)
  • Editors (confidential remarks if needed)

5 Review Criteria

Reviewers evaluate manuscripts based on:

• Scientific content:
  • Originality and novelty
  • Relevance to clinical practice, research, or policy
  • Validity of the research question
• Methodology:
  • Study design appropriateness
  • Sampling and population validity
  • Bias control and confounding
  • Statistical analysis correctness
• Results and interpretation:
  • Clarity of results
  • Appropriateness of conclusions
  • Consistency between data and interpretation
• Reporting quality:
  • Adherence to reporting guidelines (e.g., CONSORT, STROBE)
  • Clarity and organization of presentation
  • Completeness of data reporting
• Ethical standards:
  • Ethical approval confirmation
  • Informed consent (where applicable)
  • Research integrity and transparency

6 Review Outcomes

Based on reviewer recommendations, manuscripts may receive one of the following outcomes:

• Accept Submission – no revision required
• Minor Revision Required – small corrections needed
• Major Revision Required – substantial revision required, may undergo further review
• Resubmit for Review – major restructuring required; re-evaluated after revision
• Resubmit Elsewhere – outside scope or journal fit
• Decline Submission – not suitable for publication

These are recommendations, not final decisions.

7 Editorial Handling of Reviews

• All reviewer reports are assessed by the editorial team.
• Section/Associate Editors coordinate the review synthesis process.
• Editors ensure completeness, fairness, and balance of reviewer input.
• In case of divergent reviews, editorial synthesis and additional review may be initiated.

The editorial team prepares a consolidated recommendation for higher editorial oversight.

8 Revision Process

• Authors are required to revise manuscripts based on reviewer feedback.
• Revised manuscripts are reviewed by editors under oversight of the Editor-in-Chief.
• Deputy Editor-in-Chief may be involved in complex or high-impact submissions.
• In selected cases, revised manuscripts may be sent back to reviewers for re-evaluation.
• Revision cycles are controlled to maintain scientific integrity and timeliness.

9 Ethical Oversight in Peer Review

Reviewers must maintain:

• Strict confidentiality of manuscript content
• Impartial and unbiased evaluation
• Disclosure of conflicts of interest

Any suspected ethical issues (e.g., plagiarism, data fabrication, authorship disputes) must be reported through editorial channels for further evaluation under COPE guidelines.

10 Communication and Feedback

• All reviewer comments (excluding confidential notes to editors) are communicated to authors.
• Feedback is structured to support scientific improvement.
• Editors ensure clarity and completeness of communication to authors.

11 Review Timeline

Standard peer review duration: approximately 4–6 weeks

• 2–4 weeks for reviewer evaluation
• Remaining time for editorial handling and synthesis

Delays may occur depending on reviewer availability or manuscript complexity.

12 Reviewer Recognition and Capacity Building

JNMA supports reviewer development through:

• Official acknowledgment certificates for completed reviews
• Eligibility for Continuing Professional Development (CPD) credits
• Training programs in peer review methodology and ethics
• Contribution to academic and editorial development

13 Post-Peer Review Process and Post-Publication Process

After completion of peer review, the journal evaluates reviewer comments and determines the editorial decision, which may include rejection, acceptance, or return of the manuscript for revision. Peer review recommendations are advisory, and editorial decisions are based on expert judgment. Revised manuscripts may undergo multiple rounds of review with input from peer reviewers and subject experts until a final decision is reached.

Accepted manuscripts then proceed to production, where finalization includes formatting, reference verification, copy editing, and preparation in accordance with journal and publisher requirements. The corresponding author is given the opportunity to review and approve the final version, limited to correction of typographical or factual errors prior to publication. Substantive changes are not permitted at this stage unless previously agreed with the journal.

Following publication, manuscripts remain subject to post-publication review, including commentary and critique from the scientific community. Where necessary, this process may lead to corrections or retraction. Minor typographical and formatting errors identified post-production are addressed by the journal’s editorial team.

Responsibility for the integrity of the published work ultimately rests with the authors.