Peer Review Process

The peer review process at the Galen Medical Journal (GMJ) is designed to ensure the publication of high-quality, scientifically rigorous research. Our process is thorough, transparent, and adheres to the highest standards of academic integrity.

1. Initial Submission Check

Upon submission, each manuscript is first reviewed by the editorial team to ensure it aligns with the journal's scope and meets basic submission requirements. This initial check includes assessing the manuscript for originality, adherence to formatting guidelines, and overall relevance to the journal’s focus areas.

2. Assignment to an Editor

If the manuscript passes the initial check, it is assigned to a member of the editorial board with expertise in the relevant field. The assigned editor evaluates the manuscript for its scientific quality, novelty, and significance. At this stage, the editor may decide to reject the manuscript without further review if it is deemed unsuitable or unfit for publication in GMJ.

3. Selection of Reviewers

If the editor determines that the manuscript merits further consideration, it is sent out for peer review. GMJ employs a double-blind peer review process, where both the identities of the authors and reviewers are kept anonymous to each other. The editor selects reviewers who are experts in the subject matter of the manuscript. Typically, two to three reviewers are invited to evaluate the manuscript.

4. Review Process

Reviewers are asked to assess the manuscript based on several criteria, including:

  • Originality: The novelty and significance of the research.
  • Methodology: The soundness and rigor of the research methods and data analysis.
  • Clarity: The clarity and coherence of the writing, including the structure and presentation of the research.
  • Relevance: The relevance of the research to the journal's focus and the broader scientific community.
  • Ethical Standards: Adherence to ethical guidelines, including proper approval from ethics committees and the absence of conflicts of interest.

Reviewers provide detailed comments and may recommend one of the following actions:

  • Accept: The manuscript is suitable for publication with no or minor revisions.
  • Minor Revisions: The manuscript requires minor changes before it can be accepted.
  • Major Revisions: Significant changes are needed, and the revised manuscript should be resubmitted for further review.
  • Reject: The manuscript is not suitable for publication.

5. Editorial Decision

Once the reviews are received, the assigned editor considers the feedback from all reviewers and makes a decision. The possible outcomes include:

  • Acceptance: The manuscript is accepted for publication with or without minor revisions.
  • Revision: The authors are asked to revise their manuscript according to the reviewers' and editor’s comments. The revised manuscript may undergo additional rounds of review before a final decision is made.
  • Rejection: The manuscript is not accepted for publication.

Authors are informed of the editorial decision along with the reviewers' comments, which are intended to provide constructive feedback and guide any necessary revisions.

6. Revision and Resubmission

If revisions are required, authors are given a set period to make the necessary changes and resubmit their manuscript. The revised manuscript is often sent back to the original reviewers for further evaluation to ensure that the concerns have been adequately addressed.

7. Final Decision

After any required revisions are completed and the manuscript is re-evaluated, the editor makes a final decision on whether to accept or reject the manuscript. Once accepted, the manuscript moves into the production phase, where it is prepared for publication.

8. Appeals

Authors who feel their manuscript was unfairly rejected can appeal the decision by submitting a detailed justification to the Editor-in-Chief. Appeals are reviewed carefully, and the decision may be re-evaluated by the editorial board. The outcome of an appeal is final.

9. Post-Publication Review

GMJ encourages ongoing dialogue about published research. Authors, reviewers, and readers can engage in post-publication discussions through comments or letters to the editor. This helps to further refine and critique the research, contributing to the ongoing advancement of scientific knowledge.

By maintaining a rigorous and fair peer review process, GMJ ensures that all published research meets the highest standards of academic excellence and integrity.