Peer Review

 

Upon submission of a manuscript to the Journal of Medical Research and Clinical Evidence (JMRCE) — whether it is an original research article, review article, meta-analysis, case report, case series, or brief communication — the Editor-in-Chief will first evaluate whether the submission falls within the stated scope of the journal.

If the manuscript is found to be within scope, the assessment will begin with a plagiarism check using established plagiarism detection software. If the manuscript is found to be in violation of the JMRCE Plagiarism Policy, it will be summarily rejected and the corresponding author will be notified with the reason for rejection. If the manuscript conforms to the plagiarism policy, the review process will proceed through two sequential stages: Editorial Review followed by Double-Blind Peer Review.

Editorial Review

The manuscript will be assigned to a member of the Editorial Board for preliminary evaluation. This stage assesses the scientific merit, methodological soundness, ethical compliance, and adherence to the journal's formatting and submission guidelines. If the manuscript passes editorial review, the Editor-in-Chief will assign it to two independent peer reviewers with subject-matter expertise relevant to the manuscript.

Double-Blind Peer Review

JMRCE follows a rigorous double-blind peer review process. Both reviewers will be external to the Editorial Board of JMRCE. Prior to sending the manuscript for review, the editorial office will ensure that all information that could identify the authors — including author names, institutional affiliations, geographical details, acknowledgments, and self-citations — is removed from the manuscript. Similarly, the identities of the reviewers will not be disclosed to the authors at any stage. This ensures that neither the reviewers know the identity of the authors nor the authors know the identity of the reviewers, thereby eliminating any possibility of bias in the evaluation process.

Peer reviewers will be given a defined timeframe — typically two weeks — to complete their review and provide a recommendation. This duration may be extended upon reasonable request by the reviewer.

Review Outcomes

Based on the peer review, the manuscript may receive one of the following decisions:

• Accepted without revisions — The manuscript is approved for publication and a letter of acceptance will be issued to the corresponding author.
• Accepted with minor or major revisions — The reviewers' comments and requested changes will be communicated to the corresponding author. A specific timeframe will be provided for submission of the revised manuscript. The revised version will be sent back to the peer reviewers for re-evaluation. Upon satisfactory incorporation of the requested changes, the manuscript will be accepted for publication.
• Rejected — If the manuscript does not meet the scientific or ethical standards of JMRCE, it will be rejected and the corresponding author will be informed with a detailed explanation.