Peer Review Policy
All research articles, and most other article types, published in JITM undergo thorough peer review. This usually involves review by two independent peer reviewers. Individual journals may differ in their peer review processes. For example, some journals operate an open and others a closed peer review system.
All manuscripts are assessed by an Editor, who will decide whether they are suitable for peer review. Manuscripts felt to be suitable for consideration will be sent for peer review with appropriate independent experts. Editors will make a decision based on the reviewers’ reports and authors are sent these reports along with the editorial decision on their manuscript. Authors should note that even in light of one positive report, concerns raised by another reviewer may fundamentally undermine the study and result in the manuscript being rejected.
Open peer review
For journals operating an open peer review process, reviewers' names are included on the peer review reports. In addition, if the article is published, the named reports are published online alongside the article as part of a 'pre-publication history'. All previous versions of the manuscript, and all author responses to the reviewers are also available to readers. On rare occasions, information from the pre-publication history may not be available for a specific article.
Closed peer review
Most journals operate a closed peer review process. Reviewers will be treated anonymously and the pre-publication history of each article will not be made available online.
Authors may suggest potential reviewers if they wish; however, it is at the Editor(s)’ discretion whether to invite these reviewers. Authors should not suggest recent collaborators or colleagues who work in the same institution as themselves. Authors who wish to suggest peer reviewers can do so in the cover letter and should provide institutional email addresses where possible, or information which will help the Editor to verify the identity of the reviewer.
Authors may request exclusion of individuals as peer reviewers, but they should explain the reasons in their cover letter on submission. Authors should not exclude too many individuals as this may hinder the peer review process.
Intentionally falsifying information, for example, suggesting reviewers with a false name or email address, will result in the manuscript being rejected and may lead to further investigation in line with our misconduct policy.
Peer Review processes and Criteria for acceptance
Editor receives manuscript and then sends it to two or more qualified reviewers. If one of them disagrees with publication, editor will ask for the third reviewer for peer review. If he agrees with publication, editor will inform the author for acceptance. If not, the paper will be sent to the forth reviewer. If the forth reviewer disagrees, the paper will be rejected. If no experts included in our expert database are qualified for the peer review of an article, editor will invite other competent experts to review the article. The final decision of acceptance lies with the editor-in- chief based on the comments of the reviewers and authors will be informed of the decision including: Acceptance, revision or rejection. Each peer review process is expected to be completed within about ten days and Advice for acceptance will normally be supplied within one or two months.