Editorial and Peer Review Process

At Trends in Medical Research, we take pride in maintaining a rigorous and transparent peer review system to ensure the publication and dissemination of high-quality research. This page provides an overview of our meticulous editorial process, from manuscript submission to final publication. Our dedicated team of experienced editors and esteemed reviewers work together to uphold the highest standards of scientific integrity. Through this comprehensive and fair review process, we strive to facilitate the dissemination of cutting-edge knowledge and foster a vibrant scholarly community. We invite authors, reviewers, and readers alike to explore this page and gain insights into your manuscript's meticulous journey before reaching the global scientific community.

A summary of the peer review process is given below:

Initial Screening

Once a paper is submitted, the Academic Editor will screen the manuscript and decide whether or not to send it for full peer review. This step ensures adherence to our policies, including statements of competing interests, ethical requirements for studies involving human participants or animals, as well as an unacceptably low standard of language. For example, the editor ensures:

  1. Does the manuscript fit the scope of the journal, and will it be of interest to the readership?
  2. Is the manuscript of acceptable quality?
  3. Is the writing sufficiently good to warrant a review?
  4. Is the manuscript compliant with the journal's instructions for authors?

If the editor suggests changes to the manuscript during the initial evaluation before full peer review, the author(s) may be asked to revise it.

If the submitted manuscript is inconsistent with our Editorial Guidelines, it may be rejected without undergoing a full peer review.

Only the manuscripts that pass the initial screening will be sent for peer review.

Peer Review Process

All manuscripts submitted to Trends in Medical Research undergo a peer review process before final acceptance and publication. As such, our priority is to make decisions on all submitted manuscripts based on the recommendations of at least two independent reviewers. To ensure this, we carefully select well-qualified reviewers who possess a significant number of publications and possess in-depth knowledge of the subject matter and methodology. Trends in Medical Research offers various peer review options to the author(s) and processes the manuscript according to the author's choice.

  1. Single-Blind Peer Review - In this peer review model, only the reviewers are aware of the details of the submitting author(s). However, the author is not provided with the details of the reviewer.
  2. Double-Blind Peer Review - Both the reviewers and the author(s) remain anonymous in this peer review model.
  3. Open Peer Review - In this model, the details of both the reviewer(s) and author(s) are made available to each other, promoting enhanced transparency and trust in the peer-review process. If the manuscript is accepted, the reviewer's reports, modifications, and the author's responses will be published alongside the article.

How the Referees selected

Reviewer selection is critical to the review process, and our selection criteria are based on several factors, including expertise, reputation, and specific recommendations. We refrain from using reviewers who consistently demonstrate slow response times, lack attention to detail, or exhibit excessively harsh or lenient evaluations.

The responsibility of inviting reviewers lies with the Academic Editor of the journal. Reviewers gain access to the full paper only upon accepting the invitation.

A minimum of two reviewers are assigned to review each manuscript. Typically, reviewers are given a period of 30 days to complete their review process. While editors always aim for a prompt turnaround, this may not always be feasible. However, the editorial office maintains regular communication with reviewers once the paper is sent to them and provides weekly reminders regarding their due dates.

How Peer Review Works

Note: The above workflow is only a representation of our peer review process, and it may not be considered a fundamental approach to be followed by other journals.

Unbiased/Confidential evaluation process

To ensure fairness in the referee process, we make an effort to avoid selecting reviewers who:

  1. Have recent or ongoing collaborations with the authors.
  2. Have previously provided feedback on drafts of the manuscript.
  3. Are in direct competition with the authors.
  4. Have a history of disputes with the authors.
  5. Have a financial interest in the outcome.

As it is not possible for the editor to be aware of all potential biases, we request reviewers to inform us of any factors that might influence their report, including commercial interests. If reviewers feel that they are unable to provide an objective evaluation, we encourage them to decline the review request. We do not consider it necessary to exclude reviewers who have previously reviewed a paper for another journal. The fact that multiple journals have independently identified a particular individual as qualified does not diminish the validity of their opinion.

Referee Reports

Reviewers are requested to evaluate the following aspects of the manuscript under consideration:

  1. Appropriateness for the journal.
  2. Originality of the work.
  3. Methodological soundness.
  4. Adherence to appropriate ethical guidelines.
  5. Proper citation of relevant literature.

Reviewers are not expected to undertake corrections or copyediting of the manuscripts. Language correction is not a part of the peer review process.

Final Report

A final decision regarding the acceptance or rejection of the manuscript, along with any recommendations provided by the referees, will be communicated to the author. This decision may include verbatim comments from the referees.

Editor's Decision

Editors have the choice of accepting, recommending modifications, seeking additional external review, or rejecting the manuscript. In the case of a decision for Minor or Major Revision, authors are granted 30 days to submit a revised manuscript. Upon resubmission, the Academic Editor may decide to assign the manuscript to reviewers or make a decision based on their own expertise.

Editorial Independence

At Trends in Medical Research, our publications undergo a rigorous peer review process conducted by independent Editorial Boards. Our in-house staff does not influence editorial decisions regarding manuscript acceptance or rejection. The final decision is made by the academic editor, taking into account factors such as the selection of appropriate reviewers, the quality of reviewer comments and author responses, and the overall scientific merit of the paper. Our policies are guided by our mission to facilitate open and accessible dissemination of scientific research findings to a broad audience in a timely manner.

Appeals

If you wish to appeal a decision, please email the editor who handled the entire submission inquiry and review process, providing a detailed explanation of your reasons for any complaints or the appeal. Appeals will only be considered in cases where a reviewer or editor is believed to have made a significant error or displayed bias, or when a documented competing interest compromises objectivity. Either of these reasons could lead to a change in the original decision. All appeals will be reviewed by another editor, involving a total of three editors. The majority rule will be applied. The processing of appeals typically takes no longer than two weeks. While a manuscript is under appeal, it remains under formal consideration and should not be submitted elsewhere. Please note that we do not consider second appeals.