Peer Review Process for:

  1. Original Article
  2. Case Reports

Following editorial scrutiny, the manuscripts are reviewed by a minimum of two peer reviewers of a similar field of expertise as the article. We have opted for a double anonymized peer review system, which means the identities of the authors are concealed from the reviewers, and vice versa, for neutral evaluation. Care is taken to ensure that the peer reviewer is not from the same institution as any of the authors to avoid any conflict of interest to the work. The editorial board reserves all rights to decide the reviewer for the manuscript.

The Peer Review Workflow is given below:

  1. Submission of Manuscript: An author submits a manuscript to the journal using our OJS system, through the link here.
  2. Preliminary Checks: A Student Editor is assigned by any of the Assistant Editors, who is responsible for the preliminary checks according to the author guidelines. In case of discrepancy, the manuscript is sent to the author for necessary considerations.
  3. Review by Managing Editor: A Managing Editor conducts preliminary quality control of the manuscript and acceptance as per the scope and interests of the Journal.
  4. Assigning of Reviewer: The Managing Editor assigns reviewers according to the expertise of the Reviewer in the field pertaining to the manuscript. Since this is a double-blinded review, only the body of the Manuscript is sent. In case a reviewer declines an invitation, the process is repeated until the required number of reviewers is met, usually three(3).
  5. Acceptance of Review: Reviewers consider the manuscript, and may choose to either accept or decline the review invitation.
  6. Conduct of Review: Reviewers are provided with predesigned templates, based on the type of manuscript. The reviewers have a time window for reverting back with appropriate comments and decisions regarding subsequent rounds of review/acceptance/rejection.
  7. Post Review Evaluation: The Managing Editor handles all reviews and corresponds with authors for required corrections. The reviewer’s comments are generally sent to the authors within a month of submission. Taking into consideration of the reviewers’ comments, the Editorial Board decides whether the manuscript is accepted or accepted with minor revision or accepted with major revision or rejected and such decision will be informed to the corresponding author. In the case of indecisions on part of the reviewers, the manuscript is sent to a referee(usually a highly experienced and qualified expert) for final decision.
  8. Post Acceptance: The Editorial Board decides on the articles to be included in the upcoming issue, and the same is sent to the Ahead of Print section.

A workflow diagram is given below:


Review Process for:

  1. Editorial
  2. Letters to Editor
  3. Review Article
  4. Special Articles
  5. Invited Articles
  6. Radiology Quiz
  7. Medical Quiz
  8. Medical History
  9. Medical Philately

Following submission, the article is first checked for quality purposes, by a Managing Editor, who then forwards the article to the Editorial Board, for recommendations, and considerations. Following the Editorial review, the recommendations proposed are discussed with the authors. The Editorial Board in its meeting before publication convenes for acceptance/rejection of the article.

A workflow diagram is given below:

Once rejected, no re-review or resubmission of the manuscript is allowed.