Global Medical Reviews

Peer-Review Policy

Global Medical Reviews (GMR) operates a rigorous single-blind peer-review system to ensure scientific quality, methodological integrity, and contribution to medical knowledge. Reviewers remain anonymous, while the editorial team may have access to author information throughout the review process.

1. Editorial and Publishing Policies

1.1 Initial Submission

1.2 Plagiarism Screening

1.3 Assignment to Editors

Following submission, manuscripts are assigned to an Editorial Board Member for initial assessment. Suitable manuscripts are sent to a minimum of two independent external reviewers with relevant expertise.

2. Peer Review Process

2.1 Single-Blind Review

Reviewers are anonymous and their identities are not disclosed to authors. The Editorial Office manages reviewer independence and conflicts of interest.

2.2 Reviewer Selection

Reviewers are selected based on subject expertise, research background, and independence. Reviewers must declare conflicts. Authors may suggest potential reviewers or exclusions, but final selection rests with editors.

2.3 Reviewer Reports

Reviewers evaluate originality, validity of methodology, accuracy of analysis, relevance, and overall contribution to the field.

2.4 Editorial Decisions

  1. Accept.
  2. Minor Revision.
  3. Major Revision.
  4. Reject.

3. Revisions

Authors invited to revise must submit a revised manuscript with changes clearly highlighted and a point-by-point response. Revisions may be reassessed by the original or new reviewers. The journal typically limits manuscripts to one round of major revision, with additional rounds possible in exceptional cases.

4. Final Submission and Acceptance

When editorial and reviewer concerns are resolved, the manuscript may be accepted. Page-proof corrections must be returned within 72 hours (3 days) and should be limited to factual or technical corrections.

5. Appeals and Complaints

Authors may appeal a rejection once per manuscript after peer review when there is evidence of factual error or reviewer/editor bias. Complaints are investigated in line with COPE guidance.