The International Journal of Medical Science and Dental Health (IJMSDH) follows a transparent, ethical, and structured editorial process to ensure the publication of high-quality scientific research. Every manuscript submitted to the journal undergoes a rigorous evaluation process based on scientific merit, originality, ethical compliance, and relevance to the journal's scope.
The editorial process is conducted fairly, independently, and confidentially in accordance with internationally accepted publishing standards. Editorial decisions are based solely on scientific quality and are never influenced by commercial interests, institutional affiliations, or Article Processing Charges (APCs).
Objectives of the Editorial Process
The Editorial Process has been established to ensure fairness, transparency, scientific integrity, and efficiency throughout manuscript evaluation and publication.
The objectives of the editorial process are to:
- Ensure publication of original, high-quality, and scientifically sound research.
- Maintain fairness, transparency, and consistency throughout editorial evaluation.
- Protect the confidentiality of authors, reviewers, and submitted manuscripts.
- Promote responsible research conduct and ethical publishing practices.
- Facilitate constructive communication between authors, reviewers, and editors.
- Support timely editorial handling while maintaining rigorous quality standards.
Editorial Workflow
The following workflow summarizes the editorial process followed by IJMSDH from manuscript submission through final publication.
Authors submit their manuscript through the Online Submission System or the journal's official editorial email.
Editorial staff verify manuscript completeness, formatting, journal scope, and submission requirements.
The manuscript undergoes originality screening together with evaluation of ethical compliance and publication integrity.
The Editor-in-Chief or assigned Academic Editor evaluates the manuscript for scientific quality and suitability for publication.
Qualified independent reviewers evaluate the manuscript while maintaining complete author and reviewer anonymity.
Reviewers recommend Accept, Minor Revision, Major Revision, or Reject based on scientific merit.
Authors revise the manuscript in response to reviewer comments and submit a revised version with responses.
The Editor-in-Chief makes the final publication decision after evaluating reviewer reports and author revisions.
Accepted manuscripts undergo copyediting, language editing, formatting, DOI registration, and production.
The corresponding author reviews and approves the final proof before publication.
The final article is assigned a DOI and published online as Open Access in the scheduled journal issue.
Detailed Editorial Process
1. Manuscript Submission
Authors submit their manuscripts through the journal's Online Submission System or the official editorial email. Submitted manuscripts should comply with the journal's Author Guidelines and include all required declarations, author information, figures, tables, and references.
2. Initial Technical Screening
The Editorial Office performs an initial technical assessment to verify manuscript completeness, formatting, compliance with the journal's scope, and adherence to submission requirements. Manuscripts requiring technical corrections may be returned to the authors before peer review.
3. Plagiarism and Ethical Compliance
All manuscripts undergo originality screening using appropriate plagiarism detection methods together with an evaluation of publication ethics, duplicate publication, ethical approval, patient consent (where applicable), and conflict of interest disclosures.
Manuscripts presenting significant ethical concerns or serious publication misconduct may be rejected before external peer review.
4. Editorial Assessment
The Editor-in-Chief or an assigned Academic Editor evaluates the manuscript for originality, scientific quality, methodological validity, relevance to the journal's scope, and overall suitability for peer review.
Only manuscripts meeting the journal's editorial standards proceed to external peer review.
5. Double-Blind Peer Review
IJMSDH follows a Double-Blind Peer Review system in which both author and reviewer identities remain confidential throughout the review process.
Reviewers evaluate manuscripts based on:
- Scientific quality and originality.
- Research methodology.
- Clinical or academic significance.
- Data analysis and interpretation.
- Ethical compliance.
- Quality of presentation and references.
6. Reviewer Recommendations
Following evaluation, reviewers recommend one of the following editorial decisions:
- Accept
- Minor Revision
- Major Revision
- Reject
Reviewer recommendations assist the Editorial Office, while the final publication decision remains the responsibility of the Editor-in-Chief.
7. Author Revision
When revisions are requested, authors should address each reviewer comment carefully and submit a revised manuscript together with a detailed response explaining the changes made.
8. Final Editorial Decision
The Editor-in-Chief makes the final editorial decision after considering reviewer recommendations, editorial assessments, and the revised manuscript.
Editorial decisions are based exclusively on scientific quality, originality, ethical standards, and the journal's editorial policies.
9. Copyediting and Production
Accepted manuscripts proceed to copyediting, language editing, formatting, typesetting, DOI registration, metadata preparation, and production before publication.
10. Author Proof Approval
Before publication, the corresponding author receives the final proof to verify author information, affiliations, tables, figures, references, and formatting. Only minor corrections are permitted at this stage.
11. Online Publication
Following final approval, the article is assigned a DOI and published online in the scheduled journal issue. Published articles become immediately available under the journal's Open Access Policy.
Editorial Decision Criteria
Editorial decisions are based on a comprehensive evaluation of the manuscript, reviewer recommendations, and compliance with the journal's editorial policies.
The Editorial Office considers the following factors:
- Originality and novelty of the research.
- Scientific quality and methodological validity.
- Ethical compliance.
- Clinical or academic significance.
- Quality of presentation and language.
- Relevance to the journal's aims and scope.
Editorial decisions are made independently and are never influenced by commercial interests or Article Processing Charges (APCs).
Average Editorial Timeline
| Editorial Stage | Estimated Time |
|---|---|
| Initial Technical Screening | 1–2 Days |
| Editorial Assessment | 1–2 Days |
| Double-Blind Peer Review | 7–14 Days* |
| Author Revision | Depends on Authors |
| Final Editorial Decision | 2–3 Days |
| Production | 2–3 Days |
| Online Publication | According to the Publication Schedule |
*Review duration may vary depending on reviewer availability, manuscript complexity, and the number of revision rounds.
Confidentiality
All manuscripts submitted to IJMSDH are treated as confidential documents throughout the editorial and peer review process. Editors, reviewers, and editorial staff must not disclose, distribute, or discuss manuscript content with unauthorized individuals except where necessary for editorial evaluation.
Confidential information obtained during the editorial process must not be used for personal research, professional advantage, or any purpose unrelated to editorial assessment.
Editorial Independence
Editorial decisions are made independently by the Editor-in-Chief and the Editorial Board based solely on scientific merit, originality, methodological quality, ethical compliance, reviewer recommendations, and the relevance of the manuscript to the journal's scope.
The publisher, advertisers, sponsors, institutions, or Article Processing Charges (APCs) have no influence over editorial decisions. Payment of an APC does not guarantee acceptance for publication.
Appeals and Complaints
Authors who believe that an editorial decision was based on a factual error or procedural concern may submit a written appeal to the Editorial Office. Appeals should clearly explain the reasons for reconsideration and include any supporting evidence where appropriate.
Appeals are reviewed objectively by the Editor-in-Chief or an appropriate editorial representative. The outcome of the appeal will be communicated to the corresponding author after careful evaluation.
Commitment to Quality
The International Journal of Medical Science and Dental Health is committed to maintaining a fair, transparent, efficient, and ethical editorial process. The journal continuously strives to improve editorial quality by following internationally accepted standards of scholarly publishing, publication ethics, and responsible research communication.
The Editorial Board works collaboratively with authors and reviewers to ensure that all published articles contribute meaningfully to medical, dental, biomedical, and allied health sciences.
Contact Information
Questions regarding the Editorial Process, manuscript evaluation, editorial decisions, appeals, or publication procedures may be directed to the Editorial Office through the journal's official contact information available on the website. The Editorial Team is committed to providing timely assistance and maintaining transparency throughout the publication process.
Policy Review
This Editorial Process may be reviewed and updated periodically to reflect developments in scholarly publishing, editorial best practices, publication ethics, and international standards. Authors, reviewers, editors, and readers are encouraged to consult the latest version of this policy available on the journal website.
Important Notice
The Editorial Process described on this page is intended to provide general guidance regarding the manuscript evaluation and publication procedures followed by IJMSDH. The Editorial Office reserves the right to request additional revisions, supporting documentation, ethical approvals, conflict of interest declarations, data verification, or independent expert review whenever necessary to ensure the scientific quality, integrity, transparency, and ethical standards of the publication process.