Peer Review Policy

 

Overview

The XERON Journal of Medical Research (XJMR) uses an independent peer-review process to evaluate the scientific quality, originality, ethical compliance, methodological reliability, and relevance of submitted manuscripts.

Peer review assists editors in making publication decisions and helps authors improve the accuracy, clarity, and reporting quality of their manuscripts. Reviewer recommendations are advisory. The final decision regarding acceptance, revision, or rejection remains with the Editor-in-Chief or an authorised handling editor. (ICMJE)

Initial Editorial Screening

All manuscripts undergo an initial assessment before external peer review.

The editorial office checks:

  • relevance to the journal’s aims and scope;

  • completeness of the submission;

  • compliance with the Author Guidelines;

  • authorship and contributor information;

  • ethical approval and informed consent;

  • clinical-trial registration, where applicable;

  • plagiarism and text similarity;

  • conflicts of interest and funding disclosures;

  • reporting-guideline compliance;

  • quality of language and presentation; and

  • availability of required supporting documents.

A manuscript may be returned for technical corrections or rejected without external review when it:

  • falls outside the journal’s scope;

  • lacks adequate ethical documentation;

  • contains serious methodological weaknesses;

  • does not meet minimum reporting standards;

  • contains plagiarism or substantial duplication;

  • has been submitted simultaneously elsewhere;

  • presents conclusions unsupported by the data; or

  • is unsuitable for the journal’s readership.

A decision not to send a manuscript for external review does not necessarily indicate research misconduct. Journals are not required to send every submission for peer review, and editors remain responsible for deciding which manuscripts are appropriate for their journal. (ICMJE)

Peer-review Model

XJMR follows a double-anonymised peer-review model, commonly referred to as double-blind peer review.

Under this model:

  • reviewers are not informed of the authors’ identities;

  • authors are not informed of the reviewers’ identities;

  • the main manuscript should not contain author names or affiliations; and

  • identifying acknowledgments and institutional information should be provided separately on the title page.

The journal will take reasonable steps to preserve anonymity. However, complete anonymity cannot be guaranteed where authors can be identified from the research setting, previous presentations, study registration, references, preprints, or other publicly available information.

Selection of Reviewers

Manuscripts that pass editorial screening are normally evaluated by at least two independent reviewers with relevant subject or methodological expertise.

Reviewers are selected according to:

  • academic and clinical expertise;

  • research and publication experience;

  • familiarity with the manuscript topic;

  • ability to assess the study design and analysis;

  • absence of relevant conflicts of interest;

  • previous review quality and reliability; and

  • ability to complete the review within the agreed period.

Reviewer selection is the responsibility of the editors. Authors may suggest suitable reviewers, but the journal is not required to invite them.

Authors may request the exclusion of particular reviewers by providing a reasonable explanation. The editor will consider such requests but retains final authority over reviewer selection.

Reviewer Independence

Reviewers should be independent of the authors and the submitted work.

A reviewer should normally decline an invitation where they:

  • work in the same department or institution as an author;

  • have recently collaborated with an author;

  • have acted as a recent supervisor, trainee, mentor, or close research partner;

  • hold a personal, financial, institutional, or academic conflict;

  • are directly competing with the authors;

  • have participated in the research;

  • have previously reviewed substantially the same manuscript; or

  • cannot provide an impartial assessment.

Reviewers must declare potential competing interests before accepting an assignment. Where uncertainty exists, the reviewer should inform the handling editor, who will determine whether the review may proceed. COPE and ICMJE require reviewers to disclose interests that could affect impartiality and to withdraw where an appropriate independent review cannot be provided. (Publication Ethics)

Responsibilities of Reviewers

Reviewers are expected to:

  • assess only manuscripts within their area of competence;

  • respond promptly to review invitations;

  • complete accepted reviews within the agreed period;

  • provide objective and constructive comments;

  • distinguish major concerns from minor corrections;

  • support criticisms with clear scientific reasoning;

  • avoid hostile, personal, discriminatory, or defamatory remarks;

  • identify important methodological or ethical concerns;

  • notify the editor of suspected plagiarism, duplication, fabrication, or other misconduct;

  • avoid contacting authors directly;

  • protect the confidentiality of the manuscript;

  • disclose relevant competing interests; and

  • recommend acceptance, revision, or rejection based on the merits of the work.

Reviews should be respectful, specific, evidence-based, and useful to both the editor and the authors. COPE advises reviewers to provide unbiased and constructive criticism, preserve confidentiality, disclose conflicts, and complete reviews in a timely manner. (Publication Ethics)

Confidentiality

Submitted manuscripts, figures, tables, supplementary files, reviewer reports, editorial correspondence, and unpublished information are confidential.

Reviewers must not:

  • share the manuscript with unauthorised individuals;

  • discuss the submission publicly;

  • retain or distribute manuscript files;

  • use unpublished information for personal research or professional advantage;

  • appropriate ideas, data, methods, or conclusions;

  • reveal their identity to the authors without editorial permission; or

  • disclose the outcome of the review process.

A reviewer who wishes to involve a trainee or colleague must first obtain permission from the journal. The assisting individual must be identified to the editor and must follow the same confidentiality and conflict-of-interest requirements. (Publication Ethics)

Use of Artificial Intelligence by Reviewers

Reviewers must not upload manuscripts, tables, figures, supplementary files, or confidential editorial information to publicly accessible artificial-intelligence tools.

AI-assisted tools may be used during peer review only where:

  • prior written permission has been obtained from the journal;

  • confidentiality and data protection can be assured;

  • the tool does not retain or reuse submitted material;

  • its use is disclosed to the editor; and

  • the reviewer independently verifies all resulting comments.

The reviewer remains fully responsible for the accuracy, fairness, confidentiality, and intellectual content of the review. ICMJE advises reviewers to obtain journal permission before using AI tools and warns that uploading manuscripts to systems without assured confidentiality may breach peer-review obligations. (ICMJE)

Review Criteria

Reviewers may be asked to evaluate the following areas:

Relevance and Originality

  • Does the manuscript address a relevant medical or health-related question?

  • Is the research question clearly stated?

  • Does the work add meaningful evidence or insight?

  • Is the manuscript appropriate for XJMR?

Methodology

  • Is the study design appropriate?

  • Are the setting and participants clearly described?

  • Are inclusion and exclusion criteria adequate?

  • Is the sample-size justification appropriate?

  • Are variables and outcomes clearly defined?

  • Are measurements valid and reliable?

  • Are statistical methods suitable?

  • Are bias, confounding, and missing data adequately addressed?

Research Ethics

  • Is ethical approval or exemption reported?

  • Was informed consent obtained where required?

  • Is participant confidentiality protected?

  • Is trial registration provided where applicable?

  • Are vulnerable populations appropriately protected?

  • Are conflicts of interest and funding disclosed?

Results

  • Are the results presented clearly and logically?

  • Do tables and figures agree with the text?

  • Are denominators, effect estimates, confidence intervals, and p-values reported appropriately?

  • Are analyses consistent with the stated methods?

  • Is there evidence of selective or misleading reporting?

Discussion and Conclusion

  • Are the findings interpreted accurately?

  • Are comparisons with previous research appropriate?

  • Are limitations discussed adequately?

  • Are causal claims justified by the study design?

  • Are the conclusions supported by the results?

  • Are recommendations proportionate to the evidence?

Presentation and Reporting

  • Is the manuscript clearly written?

  • Is the abstract consistent with the main text?

  • Are relevant reporting guidelines followed?

  • Are references appropriate and current?

  • Are tables, figures, and supplementary materials necessary and understandable?

Reviewer Recommendations

Reviewers may recommend:

  • Accept

  • Minor Revision

  • Major Revision

  • Reject and Resubmit

  • Reject

The recommendation should be supported by clear comments.

The final editorial decision may differ from the reviewers’ recommendations because the editor must consider all reports, journal scope, ethical concerns, methodological quality, editorial priorities, and the overall evidence presented. ICMJE states that reviewers advise editors, while editors remain ultimately responsible for journal content and publication decisions. (ICMJE)

Conflicting Reviewer Reports

Where reviewer opinions differ substantially, the handling editor may:

  • assess the concerns independently;

  • invite an additional reviewer;

  • seek statistical or methodological review;

  • request clarification from the authors;

  • consult another editor; or

  • make a decision based on the strength and relevance of the concerns raised.

A manuscript will not be accepted or rejected merely by counting favourable and unfavourable recommendations.

Revision Process

When revision is requested, authors should submit:

  • a revised manuscript;

  • a marked or tracked-changes version;

  • a detailed point-by-point response;

  • any additional documents requested by the editor; and

  • an explanation for any reviewer recommendation not followed.

The revised manuscript may be:

  • assessed by the handling editor;

  • returned to the original reviewers;

  • sent to new reviewers; or

  • referred for specialist statistical or ethical review.

A request for revision does not guarantee acceptance.

Additional Review Rounds

The editor may initiate further review rounds where:

  • major methodological changes have been made;

  • additional analyses have been introduced;

  • reviewers identify unresolved concerns;

  • the revised manuscript differs substantially from the original submission; or

  • further specialist assessment is required.

Review rounds will continue only where the editor considers that the manuscript has a reasonable prospect of reaching an acceptable standard.

Editorial Decisions

Editorial decisions are based on:

  • relevance to the journal;

  • originality;

  • methodological quality;

  • ethical compliance;

  • quality of reporting;

  • reviewer comments;

  • author responses;

  • reliability of the findings; and

  • contribution to medical or health-related evidence.

Decisions must not be influenced by nationality, ethnicity, religion, gender, institutional affiliation, professional seniority, financial position, positive or negative study results, or use of services offered by the publisher. ICMJE recommends that decisions be based on relevance, originality, quality, and contribution to evidence rather than commercial or personal considerations. (ICMJE)

Manuscripts Submitted by Editors or Board Members

Manuscripts submitted by an editor, Editorial Board member, adviser, employee, or individual closely associated with XJMR will not be handled by that person.

Such submissions will be:

  • assigned to an independent editor;

  • reviewed by independent external reviewers;

  • processed without involvement from the submitting editor; and

  • evaluated according to the same standards applied to other manuscripts.

The submitting editor will not have access to reviewer identities, confidential discussions, or editorial decisions beyond the information normally provided to authors.

XERON Research Services and Editorial Independence

Use of XERON Research Services does not guarantee peer review, acceptance, rapid publication, favourable reviewer comments, or any other editorial outcome.

Where a manuscript has received paid or unpaid support from XERON Research Services:

  • the relationship must be disclosed;

  • the manuscript will be assigned to an independent editor;

  • individuals involved in providing the service will not take part in the editorial decision;

  • reviewers will be selected independently; and

  • the manuscript will undergo the journal’s standard assessment process.

Editorial decisions remain independent of the publisher’s research-support activities.

Editorials, Letters and Invited Articles

Editorials, invited commentaries, letters, corrections, and certain other editorial materials may undergo internal editorial review rather than full external peer review.

Where appropriate, such content may also be sent for external review, statistical assessment, ethical evaluation, or fact-checking.

The article page should clearly identify content that has not undergone the standard external peer-review process.

Suspected Misconduct During Review

Where reviewers or editors identify possible:

  • plagiarism;

  • duplicate publication;

  • data fabrication;

  • data falsification;

  • inappropriate image manipulation;

  • undisclosed conflicts of interest;

  • unethical research;

  • authorship irregularities; or

  • manipulation of peer review,

the journal may suspend the review process and request supporting documentation.

The concern may be referred to the authors’ institution, ethics committee, funder, regulatory authority, or another appropriate body. The journal will not ask reviewers to conduct their own independent investigation.

Appeals

Authors may appeal an editorial decision by submitting a reasoned written request to the editorial office.

An appeal should:

  • identify the manuscript;

  • explain the grounds for appeal;

  • respond to the principal editorial or reviewer concerns;

  • provide relevant supporting evidence; and

  • avoid repeating arguments already considered without new justification.

The appeal will be reviewed by the Editor-in-Chief or another independent editor who was not directly responsible for the original decision, where practical.

An appeal does not guarantee reconsideration, external re-review, or acceptance.

Post-publication Review

Questions or concerns raised after publication will be assessed by the editorial team.

The journal may request:

  • clarification from the authors;

  • original data;

  • ethics documentation;

  • statistical files;

  • laboratory records;

  • consent documentation; or

  • an institutional investigation.

Depending on the findings, the journal may publish a correction, editorial note, expression of concern, or retraction.

Medical journals should provide readers with a mechanism for raising questions or criticism about published work, and authors are expected to cooperate with post-publication enquiries. (ICMJE)