top of page

Peer Review Policy


To ensure a high quality of scientific research, all research articles published in the Journal of Anatomical Sciences undergo a thorough peer review process conducted by external experts before publication.



Double blind peer review


The double-blind peer review system is an anonymous process in which the identities of the authors of a manuscript are kept hidden from the selected reviewers. To ensure anonymity, any details that may reveal the authors' identities are removed from the manuscript before it is sent to the reviewers. Similarly, the reviewers' identities are also concealed from the authors when their comments are forwarded to them. 

The double-blind peer system is considered to be a more effective review system as it minimizes the potential bias that may arise from either the reviewers or the authors. Thus, authors are not required to recommend reviewers of their choice.



Peer review process


All submissions to the Journal of Anatomical Sciences are assessed by an editor, who decides upon their suitability for peer review. Where an Editor is on the author list or has any other competing interest regarding a specific manuscript, another member of the Editorial Board will be assigned to assume responsibility for overseeing peer review. Submissions felt to be suitable for consideration will be sent for peer review to appropriate independent experts.


Reviewers are required to evaluate the manuscripts and provide useful comments to enable the author(s) improve the quality of the manuscript. Reviewers also score the manuscript in terms of originality, contribution to the field, technical quality, clarity of presentation and depth of research. Finally, reviewers make one of the following suggestions about the manuscript -


* Requires minor corrections

* Requires moderate revision

* Requires major revision

* Not suitable for further processing. In this case, the reviewer provides specific reason(s) why the manuscript not be further       processed.


Editors will make a decision based on the reviewers’ reports and authors are notified about these reports along with the editorial decision on their manuscript. Authors should note that even in light of one positive report, concerns raised by another reviewer may fundamentally undermine the study and result in the manuscript being rejected.


Using the reviewers’ comments, author(s) make corrections to the manuscript and submits a revised manuscript. Upon receipt of the revised submission, it is sent to an editor of the journal along with the original manuscript and all the reviewers’ comments. The editor reviews the manuscript and makes one the following decisions


* Accept as it is

* Accept with minor correction

* Requires major corrections

* Reject


Manuscripts that are accepted as it is are scheduled for publication. Manuscripts that require corrections (either minor or major) are sent to the author(s) to make the corrections as suggested by the editor. After effecting the corrections, the editor reviews the manuscripts again to ensure whether the manuscripts are fit to be accepted for publication. In some cases, the editor may require authors to make corrections a second time.


Mere submission of a manuscript does not guarantee acceptance for publication until it undergoes the peer-review process. The date of publication is clearly mentioned with each published manuscript. Accepted manuscripts which are published do not include the reviews from either the anonymous reviewers or the changes as required by the editors.


Letters to the editor are usually exempted from the peer review process involving external experts. 

(COPE guidelines for Peer Reviewers can be downloaded from the 'Downloads' page under 'Author Guidelines')

bottom of page