Peer Review Policy and Process

Axis Journal of Medical and Biosocial Sciences (AJMBS)

Commitment to Scientific Integrity

The Axis Journal of Medical and Biosocial Sciences (AJMBS) is committed to maintaining the highest standards of scientific rigor, impartiality, and editorial transparency. Our double-blind peer review system ensures that both authors and reviewers remain anonymous throughout the process, eliminating bias and reinforcing objectivity. This rigorous evaluation structure upholds the quality, reliability, and ethical integrity of every article published in the journal.

1. Initial Screening

All manuscripts submitted to AJMBS undergo a preliminary editorial assessment by the Editor-in-Chief or an assigned editorial board member.
This screening evaluates:
- Relevance to the journal’s scope (medical, clinical, biosocial, and interdisciplinary health sciences).
- Compliance with submission guidelines and formatting requirements.
- Ethical soundness, originality, and scientific merit.
Manuscripts failing to meet these criteria or containing significant ethical or methodological concerns are returned to the authors with editorial comments prior to review consideration.

2. Selection of Reviewers

Each manuscript approved for peer review is evaluated by a minimum of two independent expert reviewers possessing relevant subject expertise.
Reviewers are chosen based on:
- Academic qualifications and research experience in the manuscript’s field.
- Absence of conflicts of interest or recent collaborations with the authors.
- Proven record of professional and ethical conduct in peer review.
The editorial board maintains a diverse pool of national and international reviewers to ensure balanced perspectives and academic fairness.

3. Reviewer Responsibilities

Reviewers play a pivotal role in ensuring the quality and credibility of AJMBS publications. They are expected to:

Maintain confidentiality: Treat all manuscripts as privileged documents and avoid sharing or discussing them with others.
Provide objective feedback: Deliver fair, evidence-based, and constructive evaluations aimed at improving the manuscript.
Disclose conflicts of interest: Inform the editor immediately if any personal or professional conflicts exist.
Adhere to timelines: Complete reviews within the assigned period, typically 2–3 weeks, to maintain an efficient editorial workflow.
Avoid plagiarism and misuse: Reviewers must not use unpublished data or ideas from reviewed manuscripts for personal benefit.

4. Review Process and Decision Flow

a. Reviewer Evaluation

Reviewers assess manuscripts on parameters such as originality, methodology, clarity, validity of data, and significance of findings.
Each reviewer provides detailed comments and recommends one of the following decisions:
- Accept as is
- Minor revision required
- Major revision required
- Reject

b. Author Revision

Authors are required to address all reviewer comments systematically and resubmit a revised version within the specified timeframe.
The revised manuscript is re-evaluated by the same reviewers or editorial staff to confirm the adequacy of revisions.

c. Editorial Decision

The Editor-in-Chief, in consultation with section editors and reviewers’ recommendations, makes the final publication decision.
Editorial decisions are made impartially, based solely on scientific merit and ethical compliance.
Accepted manuscripts undergo final editing, language polishing, and formatting before publication.

5. Preventing Peer Review Manipulation

To uphold transparency and prevent unethical practices, AJMBS implements strict measures against manipulation of the review process:

Reviewer identities are verified through institutional affiliations, ORCID IDs, or professional profiles.
Reviewer suggestions from authors are carefully scrutinized and validated independently.
The editorial team monitors for signs of fabricated reviewer identities or fraudulent peer review activity.
Any suspected misconduct is investigated in accordance with COPE guidelines, and confirmed cases lead to immediate corrective action.

6. Double-Blind Review Confidentiality

Throughout the review process, both the authors’ and reviewers’ identities remain concealed.
Reviewers receive anonymized manuscripts to eliminate bias based on identity, nationality, or institutional background.
Authors are expected to remove identifying details from their manuscripts before submission to maintain anonymity.

7. Transparency and Accountability in Editorial Decisions

All editorial decisions are made through a documented and traceable process.
The editorial office communicates clearly with authors regarding reviewer feedback, revision timelines, and publication outcomes.
Appeals against editorial decisions may be submitted with a detailed justification and are reviewed independently by senior editorial members.

8. Post-Publication Review and Corrections

AJMBS encourages post-publication feedback from readers and scholars to ensure ongoing accountability.
In cases where post-publication errors or ethical concerns are identified, the journal will issue corrections, expressions of concern, or retractions as necessary to maintain the scholarly record’s accuracy.

9. Commitment to Timeliness and Fairness

AJMBS strives to complete the peer review process within 6–8 weeks from submission.
Authors are updated at every major stage of review to promote transparency and confidence in the process.
The journal aims to foster constructive academic exchange, ensuring that all participants—authors, reviewers, and editors—are treated with professionalism and respect.

Conclusion

Through its double-blind, impartial, and ethically governed peer review process, the Axis Journal of Medical and Biosocial Sciences (AJMBS) guarantees the publication of only the most credible, methodologically sound, and impactful research. By upholding transparency, fairness, and academic excellence, AJMBS strengthens the foundation of trust and integrity in medical and biosocial scholarship.