Peer Review Policy

 

All journals published by Zanjan University of Medical Sciences (ZUMS) adhere to a double-blind peer review policy, following the principles of the COPE’s Code of Conduct and Best Practices and ICMJE's Recommendations for the Conduct, Reporting, Editing and Publication of Scholarly Work in Medical Journals.

 

Peer Review Process

 

The decision to publish a manuscript depends on both editorial evaluation and peer review. At the initial stage, every submission is assessed by an editorial committee consisting of at least two members of the editorial board, under the direction of the Editor-in-Chief. The main goal of this stage is to determine whether the manuscript should proceed to external review or be rejected early.

Manuscripts that fall outside the journal’s aims and scope, or do not meet the journal’s basic quality standards, will be declined at this point to prevent unnecessary delay for authors seeking publication elsewhere. In some cases, the manuscript may be returned to the authors with requests for minor revisions before being considered for external review. Authors usually receive a decision within 1–2 weeks of submission.

Manuscripts sent for external evaluation undergo double-blind peer review by at least two independent experts selected from an international panel, supervised by the relevant Section Editor and the Editor-in-Chief. Every effort is made to ensure that both author and reviewer identities remain confidential. However, if an author’s identity is revealed within the text or metadata, the process may proceed as single-blind (where only reviewers remain anonymous).

The peer review process is generally completed within 4–8 weeks after the decision to review, though occasional delays may occur. The Editor-in-Chief retains the final authority for acceptance or rejection of all submissions

 

Reviewers Role

 

Reviewers play a vital role in maintaining the journal’s quality and integrity. They are required to uphold anonymity and confidentiality throughout the review process.

A reviewer should decline an invitation if:

  • The manuscript is outside their area of expertise.

  • They are unable to complete the review on time.

  • A conflict of interest exists.

All submissions are treated as confidential documents. Reviewers must not share manuscripts or delegate the review to others without prior editorial permission.

Reviewers are expected to ensure that only high-quality and original research is accepted. They should inform the editor if the manuscript appears to be under consideration elsewhere.

In assessing manuscripts, reviewers generally evaluate:

  • Article structure and compliance with author guidelines

  • Purpose and clarity of objectives

  • Logical flow and transition of sections

  • Introduction, conclusion, and recommendations

  • Use of appropriate references

  • Grammar, punctuation, and spelling

  • Presence of plagiarism or research misconduct

  • Overall relevance to the journal’s scope

Reviewers’ comments are a key factor in the editorial decision. They should provide detailed, unbiased feedback and disclose any potential conflicts of interest.

 

Guidance for Peer Reviewers

 

All manuscripts are reviewed under a double-blind system. Peer review is fundamental to ensuring the quality and credibility of scientific publishing.

As a reviewer, you advise the editorial team (Section Editor and Editor-in-Chief) who make the final decision, often in consultation with the editorial board. Even if a paper is not accepted, constructive comments are encouraged to help authors improve their work.

Manuscripts and all related materials are strictly confidential. Reviewers should not discuss them with colleagues without permission. If unable to review a paper, reviewers are expected to promptly inform the editorial office so an alternative reviewer may be assigned.

Reviewers should:

  • Familiarize themselves with the journal’s Aims and Scope and Author Guidelines.

  • Provide clear, constructive, and objective evaluations.

  • Write in plain, understandable English.

  • Reference page and line numbers for clarity.

  • Offer suggestions for improving quality, structure, or clarity.

Comments to authors should always be professional, respectful, and aimed at improvement

 

Privacy and Confidentiality

 

Prepared in accordance with the ICMJE's Recommendations for the Conduct, Reporting, Editing and Publication of Scholarly Work in Medical Journals)

All manuscripts must be reviewed with full respect for authors’ confidentiality. Editors and reviewers must not disclose any details about submitted manuscripts—including content, reviewer comments, or review status—to anyone other than the authors and reviewers involved.

Manuscripts and reviewer reports are considered privileged communications and must not be shared, copied, or used for any purpose other than peer review. All copies of reviewed manuscripts should be destroyed or returned after the review is complete. Reviewer comments cannot be published or shared publicly without explicit consent from all parties

 


COPE’s Guidelines & Flowcharts

 

All journals published by Zanjan University of Medical Sciences (ZUMS) strictly follow the Committee on Publication Ethics(COPE) guidelines and flowcharts throughout the review and publication process . For more information, see: https://publicationethics.org


 

Conflict of Interest in Reviewing Process

 

 Although ZUMS journals use a double-blind review system, the research community is often small, and reviewers may know the authors’ work. A fair review can still be conducted in such cases; however:

  • Any significant conflict of interest should be disclosed to the editor.

  • If the conflict might bias the review, the reviewer should decline the invitation.

  • Comments should focus solely on the manuscript and avoid personal judgments.

Editors value transparency regarding potential conflicts of interest and will assign another reviewer when necessary