Peer Review Policy & Process
General Information: All Original Articles, Review Articles, Case Reports, Short Communications, and Technical Notes submitted to Razavi Journal of Medicine undergo an initial screening by the editorial office to assess scope relevance, completeness, formatting requirements, and similarity checks. Manuscripts that do not meet the basic requirements may be returned to authors without peer review.
Initial screening is completed within 2–7 days after submission.
Authors and reviewers use a secure online submission and review system to manage the peer review process.
Editorial Decisions: Editorial decisions are made by the Editor-in-Chief or designated editors based on the scientific quality of the manuscript and the independent reports provided by peer reviewers.
Reviewer recommendations are advisory and do not determine the final decision. In cases of conflicting reviews, the editor evaluates the scientific arguments and determines the final decision based on overall merit.
The journal follows COPE and international peer review standards to ensure fair, unbiased, and evidence-based editorial decisions.
Peer Review Process: All manuscripts that pass initial screening are subjected to double-blind peer review, in which both authors and reviewers remain anonymous throughout the process.
Typically, each manuscript is evaluated by at least two independent experts. Where necessary, a statistical reviewer may also be invited.
Based on reviewers’ comments, the Editor-in-Chief or designated editors issue one of the following decisions:
Appeals: Authors may submit an appeal if they believe a manuscript has been incorrectly evaluated. Appeals are reviewed by the editorial office, but acceptance after appeal is not guaranteed.
Reviewer Reports.
Reviewer reports are transmitted to authors in full. On rare occasions, offensive or confidential content may be edited. Reviewers are encouraged to provide constructive, clear, and professional feedback.
Timing: The journal is committed to efficient peer review. Reviewers are expected to respond within the agreed timeframe. Delays should be communicated to the editorial office to ensure timely processing.