Peer Review Process

1. Purpose

The peer review process at UMed Press ensures that all published articles meet the highest standards of quality, originality, and academic integrity.
It is an essential component of our publishing ethics and helps maintain the credibility of scientific communication across all UMed Press journals.

2. Overview

All manuscripts submitted to UMed Press journals undergo a double-blind peer review process, meaning:

  • The authors and reviewers remain anonymous to each other throughout the process.

  • Reviews are conducted by independent subject experts with relevant research backgrounds.

This system promotes impartiality, transparency, and academic rigor.

3. Steps in the Peer Review Process

Step 1: Initial Screening

  • Upon submission, manuscripts are screened by the Editorial Office to ensure compliance with:

    • Journal scope

    • Formatting and submission guidelines

    • Plagiarism and originality (using licensed plagiarism detection tools)

  • Manuscripts failing to meet basic standards are returned to authors for correction or desk rejection.

Step 2: Editor Evaluation

  • The Editor-in-Chief or Handling Editor reviews the manuscript’s content, relevance, and quality.

  • If deemed suitable, the editor assigns the paper to at least two qualified reviewers from the editorial board or external expert pool.

Step 3: Reviewer Invitation

  • Reviewers are selected based on their expertise, publication record, and absence of conflicts of interest.

  • Invitations include the article title, abstract, and review timeline.

  • If a reviewer declines, alternative reviewers are promptly assigned.

Step 4: Double-Blind Review

  • Reviewers evaluate the manuscript on:

    • Originality and significance of the research

    • Clarity and structure of presentation

    • Soundness of methodology and analysis

    • Relevance of results and conclusions

    • Ethical compliance and referencing quality

  • Reviewers provide detailed written feedback and a recommendation:

    • Accept

    • Minor Revision

    • Major Revision

    • Reject

Step 5: Decision and Revision

  • The editor compiles reviewer comments and issues a decision:

    • Accept as is

    • Revise and resubmit (minor or major)

    • Reject

  • For revisions, authors must respond to all reviewer comments in a point-by-point response letter.

Step 6: Final Decision

  • The revised manuscript is re-evaluated by the editor (and reviewers if needed).

  • The Editor-in-Chief makes the final decision regarding publication.

  • Once accepted, the manuscript proceeds to copyediting, proofing, and DOI assignment.

4. Review Timeframe

  • Initial editorial decision: within 7–10 working days of submission.

  • Peer review and first decision: usually within 12–14 weeks of submission.

  • Authors are informed promptly of any delays.

5. Reviewer Ethics and Confidentiality

  • Reviewers must treat manuscripts as confidential documents.

  • They may not share, cite, or use the data prior to publication.

  • Reviews must be objective, constructive, and free from personal bias.

  • Reviewers are required to declare any conflicts of interest before accepting the review.

6. Editorial Independence

  • Editorial decisions are not influenced by commercial, political, or personal factors.

  • Editors and reviewers are expected to uphold integrity, fairness, and transparency in all assessments.

7. Appeals and Complaints

  • Authors may appeal editorial decisions by writing to:
    editorial@umedpress.com

  • Appeals are reviewed by an independent senior editor or ethics committee, whose decision is final.

  • All complaints are handled in line with the UMed Press Complaints Policy and COPE procedures.

8. Transparency in Peer Review

  • UMed Press supports transparency in research evaluation.

  • With author consent, reviewer acknowledgments may be listed annually (without linking them to specific papers).

  • Some journals may pilot open peer review (review reports published alongside articles).

9. COPE Compliance

UMed Press follows the ethical guidelines set by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE):
https://publicationethics.org/resources/guidelines

10. Contact

For questions regarding the peer review process, please contact:
review@umedpress.com
umedpress.com