Peer Review Policy

The Medical Journal of Internal Medicine (MJIM) is committed to maintaining the highest standards of scholarly publishing through a rigorous and transparent double-blind peer review process. This process ensures that all manuscripts are evaluated fairly, objectively, and confidentially, with the goal of publishing only high-quality, ethically sound, and scientifically valid research.

1. Type of Peer Review

MJIM operates a double-blind peer review system, meaning:

  • The identities of authors are not disclosed to reviewers.

  • The identities of reviewers are not disclosed to authors.

  • This ensures impartiality and minimizes potential bias.

2. Initial Editorial Screening

  • Every submission is first reviewed by the Editorial Office for compliance with the journal’s scope, formatting guidelines, and ethical requirements.

  • Manuscripts may be desk rejected at this stage if they are:

    • Outside the scope of MJIM

    • Of insufficient quality or originality

    • Non-compliant with ethical or technical standards (e.g., plagiarism, missing approvals)

3. Reviewer Selection

  • At least two independent expert reviewers are assigned to each manuscript.

  • Reviewers are selected based on their expertise, research background, and absence of conflicts of interest.

  • The journal maintains a diverse reviewer pool to ensure international representation and balanced evaluation.

4. Reviewer Responsibilities

Reviewers are expected to:

  • Provide a fair, objective, and timely review of the manuscript.

  • Evaluate the study’s originality, methodology, results, clarity, and ethical standards.

  • Suggest constructive improvements for the authors.

  • Declare any conflict of interest and decline the review if necessary.

  • Maintain strict confidentiality and avoid using information from the manuscript for personal advantage.

5. Evaluation Criteria

Manuscripts are evaluated based on:

  • Originality and novelty of the research

  • Scientific validity of methodology and data analysis

  • Clarity of presentation and logical structure

  • Relevance to internal medicine and global health

  • Ethical compliance, including patient consent and institutional approval

  • Contribution to advancing knowledge and practice in the field

6. Editorial Decision Process

Based on reviewer recommendations, the Editor-in-Chief (or assigned Associate Editor) makes one of the following decisions:

  • Accept without changes

  • Minor revision (accepted after minor corrections)

  • Major revision (authors must address reviewer concerns before reconsideration)

  • Reject (manuscript is unsuitable for publication)

In case of conflicting reviewer reports, a third reviewer or a member of the editorial board may be consulted.

7. Revision and Resubmission

  • Authors receiving revision requests must respond point-by-point to all reviewer comments.

  • Revised manuscripts may undergo a second round of review, especially in cases of major revisions.

  • Failure to adequately address reviewer comments may result in rejection.

8. Timelines

MJIM strives to ensure a timely review process:

  • Initial editorial screening: 1–2 weeks

  • Peer review: 3–6 weeks

  • First decision: within 6–8 weeks from submission

  • Final decision (after revisions): 2–3 weeks

These timelines may vary depending on reviewer availability and the complexity of revisions.

9. Appeals and Complaints

  • Authors may appeal editorial decisions if they believe their manuscript was unfairly assessed.

  • Appeals must be submitted in writing with a detailed justification.

  • The Editor-in-Chief, along with an independent editorial board member, will review the appeal.

  • The decision on appeals is final.

10. Ethical Oversight in Peer Review

MJIM strictly prohibits:

  • Reviewer misconduct (e.g., delaying reviews, breaching confidentiality, plagiarism of ideas)

  • Manipulation of the peer review process

  • Unethical citation practices (“citation cartels” or coercive citations)

Any such cases will be investigated following COPE guidelines, and appropriate actions will be taken.