The International Journal of Medical Science and Dental Health (IJMSDH) is committed to maintaining the highest standards of scientific quality, research integrity, and ethical publishing. Every manuscript submitted to the journal undergoes a fair, objective, and confidential peer review process designed to evaluate its originality, scientific merit, methodological quality, ethical compliance, and relevance to the journal's scope.

IJMSDH follows a Double-Blind Peer Review model, in which the identities of both authors and reviewers remain confidential throughout the review process. Editorial decisions are based solely on the scientific quality of the manuscript and are made independently of the authors' nationality, institutional affiliation, gender, funding source, or Article Processing Charge (APC) payment.

Purpose of Peer Review

Double-Blind Peer Review

Initial Editorial Screening

After successful editorial screening, the manuscript is assigned to independent reviewers with appropriate academic qualifications and subject expertise. Reviewers are selected based on their research experience, publication record, and familiarity with the manuscript's discipline.

Reviewers are selected based on the following criteria:

• Relevant subject expertise and research experience.
• Scientific qualifications and publication record.
• Absence of any potential conflict of interest.
• Ability to provide objective, timely, and constructive reviews.
• Commitment to maintaining confidentiality throughout the review process.

In most cases, each manuscript is evaluated by at least two independent reviewers. Where necessary, additional reviewers or subject experts may be invited to provide further evaluation.

Reviewers evaluate manuscripts objectively using internationally accepted scholarly standards. The assessment focuses on the scientific quality and overall contribution of the research rather than the identity or affiliation of the authors.

During peer review, reviewers generally assess:

• Originality and novelty of the research.
• Scientific significance and contribution to the field.
• Study design and research methodology.
• Statistical analysis and interpretation of results (where applicable).
• Ethical compliance and research integrity.
• Quality of data presentation, tables, and figures.
• Clarity, organization, and readability of the manuscript.
• Appropriateness and accuracy of references.
• Relevance to the journal's aims and scope.

Reviewers play a vital role in maintaining the scientific quality of the journal. They are expected to conduct reviews professionally, objectively, and in accordance with accepted ethical standards.

Reviewers are expected to:

• Provide fair, objective, and evidence-based evaluations.
• Submit review reports within the requested review period.
• Maintain strict confidentiality of all manuscript content.
• Identify relevant published work that has not been cited.
• Report any suspected plagiarism, duplicate publication, or ethical concerns.
• Declare any actual or potential conflicts of interest before accepting a review assignment.

All manuscripts submitted to IJMSDH are treated as confidential documents. Editors and reviewers must not disclose, discuss, distribute, or use unpublished manuscript content for personal research or any other purpose without prior authorization from the Editorial Office.

The identities of authors and reviewers remain confidential throughout the Double-Blind Peer Review process unless disclosure is required by law or agreed upon by all parties involved.

Editors and reviewers must disclose any financial, professional, institutional, or personal relationships that could influence, or reasonably be perceived to influence, their evaluation of a manuscript.

Reviewers with a significant conflict of interest are expected to decline the review invitation. Where a conflict is identified after the review process has begun, the reviewer should immediately notify the Editorial Office so that appropriate action can be taken.

After considering the reviewers' reports, the assigned Editor and the Editor-in-Chief make the final editorial decision. Editorial decisions are based solely on the scientific quality, originality, ethical compliance, reviewer recommendations, and relevance of the manuscript to the journal's scope.

The possible editorial decisions include:

• Accept: The manuscript is accepted for publication without further changes or with only minor editorial corrections.
• Minor Revision: Authors are requested to address minor comments before final acceptance.
• Major Revision: Substantial revisions are required before the manuscript can be reconsidered.
• Reject: The manuscript does not meet the journal's scientific, methodological, or ethical standards for publication.

The Editor-in-Chief reserves the right to make the final publication decision after careful consideration of all reviewer comments and editorial assessments.

When revisions are requested, authors should carefully address each reviewer comment and submit a revised manuscript together with a detailed response explaining how the comments have been addressed.

Revised manuscripts may be returned to the original reviewers for further evaluation or assessed directly by the handling editor, depending on the extent of the revisions requested.

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 provide supporting evidence where appropriate.

All appeals are reviewed independently 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.

Editorial decisions are made independently and are never influenced by commercial interests, institutional affiliations, advertising, sponsorship, or Article Processing Charges (APCs). Payment of an APC does not influence the outcome of the peer review process or guarantee acceptance for publication.

The journal is committed to maintaining fairness, transparency, editorial integrity, and ethical decision-making throughout every stage of the publication process.

Although review times may vary depending on reviewer availability and manuscript complexity, the journal aims to complete the editorial and peer review process as efficiently as possible.

• Initial Editorial Screening: 2–5 days
• Peer Review: 2–4 weeks
• Author Revision (if required): 1–3 weeks
• Final Editorial Decision: Within 1 week after receipt of the revised manuscript

These timelines are intended as general guidance only and may vary depending on the complexity of the manuscript and reviewer availability.

Questions regarding the journal's Peer Review Process, editorial decisions, reviewer responsibilities, appeals, or publication ethics may be directed to the Editorial Office using the official contact information provided on the journal website. The Editorial Team is committed to maintaining a fair, transparent, and confidential peer review process.