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 before publication.

 

 

Double blind peer review

 

A double-blind peer review system is an anonymous review system whereby the identity of the author(s) of a manuscript is concealed from the selected reviewers. All details that may enable a reviewer to identify the author(s) of a manuscript are removed from the manuscript before the manuscript is sent to the reviewer. Similarly, the reviewers’ identities are also concealed from the author(s) when sending the reviewers’ comments to the author(s).

 

The double-blind peer system is considered as a more effective review system because it limits possible bias from either the selected reviewers or from authors.

 

 

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.

Eml.JPG
ici2.png
Scopemed.JPG
Google scholar.png

Visitor Count

issn_9770970184000.jpg
open_access.png