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.