Every full research article published in JRMB has been through peer review as outlined in the journal’s Aims & Scope information. This means that its quality, validity, and relevance has been assessed by independent peers within the field.
The reviewers know the author of the article, but you author don’t know the identities of the reviewers.
Process of peer review
1. The journal receives a paper.
2. The journal editor checks the paper against the journal’s aims and scope.
3. The editor then selects reviewers (usually 2-3 of your peers) and sends the paper.
4. The reviewers read the paper and provide comments, suggestions and a recommendation (reject, revise or accept).
5. The editor checks the reviews and sends them to the author(s), with any extra guidance. If there are revisions, the author(s) decides whether to make these and re-submit.
6. Authors make amendments and re-submit the paper.
7. If the journal accepts the paper, it moves into production and is published.
All manuscripts (except for Editorials, Commentaries, and Book Reviews) will be sent out for review and at least two review reports per manuscript will be collected. After being reviewed, there will be four kinds of editor decision based on reviewers’ recommendation:
1. Accept Submission: The submission will be accepted without revisions.
2. Revisions Required: The submission will be accepted after minor changes have been made.
3. Resubmit for Review: The submission needs to be re-worked, but with significant changes, may be accepted. It will require a second round of review, however.
4. Decline Submission: The submission will not be published in the journal.
When authors make revisions to their article, they’re asked to submit a list of changes and any comments for the reviewers. The revised version is usually returned to the original reviewer if possible. The reviewer is then asked to affirm whether the revisions are satisfactory.
Form Peer Review