Peer Review Process

The Greenfort International Journal of Applied Medical Science (GIJAMS) follows a rigorous double-blind peer review process, ensuring that:

• the identity of authors is concealed from reviewers, and
• the identity of reviewers is concealed from authors.

This method promotes impartial evaluation, reduces potential bias, and upholds the scientific integrity of the review process.

Peer review is essential to validating the quality, originality, and reliability of submitted research. All reviewers are experts in their subject areas and volunteer their time to help improve the quality of manuscripts.

Review Workflow

1. Initial Screening:
   The editorial team performs a preliminary assessment for scope, compliance with author guidelines, and basic scientific soundness.
2. Double-Blind Review:
   Suitable manuscripts are sent to at least two independent reviewers.
3. Review Timeline:
   The review process typically takes 10–12 working days, depending on the complexity and length of the manuscript.
4. Editorial Decision:
   The final publication decision (accept, minor revision, major revision, or rejection) is made by the Editorial Team based on:
   • reviewers’ recommendations,
   • scientific quality,
   • originality and relevance.
5. Revision Process:
   Authors are expected to address all reviewer comments thoroughly and resubmit their revised manuscript within the specified timeframe.

Peer Review Model

GIJAMS uses the Double-Blind Peer Review Model, ensuring:

• Reviewer identities are not disclosed to authors.
• Author identities are not disclosed to reviewers.
• All evaluations are independent and confidential.

Review Criteria

Reviewers evaluate manuscripts based on the following key criteria:

• Originality and contribution to the field
• Relevance to the journal’s scope
• Methodological soundness
• Accuracy and clarity of data
• Strength and logic of conclusions
• Compliance with ethical standards (human/animal research)
• Completeness of references and citations
• Overall clarity and quality of writing

Transparent Peer Review (Optional)

To enhance openness and accountability, authors may opt into transparent peer review, where the peer-review reports may be published alongside the article. Reviewer identities remain anonymous unless they choose to disclose them.

Role of Reviewers

Reviewers are asked to assess the manuscript based on questions such as:

• Does the abstract clearly reflect the study?
• Is the study rationale well supported by relevant literature?
• Are the methods sufficiently described and replicable?
• Are statistical analyses appropriate and clearly presented?
• Are ethical approvals and informed consent documented?
• Are results clear, consistent, and valid?
• Are discussions balanced with appropriate comparison to existing literature?
• Are conflicts of interest disclosed?
• Does the manuscript require significant language or structural editing?

Reviewers should only accept assignments for manuscripts within their expertise and must decline if a conflict of interest exists (personal, professional, or financial).

Reviewer Guidelines

GIJAMS expects reviewers to adhere to the following best practices:

1. Declare Conflicts of Interest:
   Reviewers must disclose any personal, academic, or financial conflicts related to the manuscript.
2. Provide Fair and Constructive Feedback:
   Reviews should be objective, respectful, and aimed at improving the scholarly quality of the manuscript.
3. Confidentiality:
   Manuscripts under review are confidential documents.
   Reviewers may not:
   • share, discuss, or use the information for personal benefit,
   • involve colleagues without prior permission from the editor.
4. Reporting Guidelines:
   Reviewers are encouraged to refer to reporting standards (CONSORT, PRISMA, STROBE, CARE, etc.) when evaluating submissions.

Ethical Concerns:

If reviewers suspect plagiarism, fabrication, ethical misconduct, or duplicate publication, they must notify the Editorial Office confidentially.