Peer review policy
A structured, double-blind, evidence-based review process
MedicianX operates a fully double-blind peer review model. Every manuscript moves through a fixed sequence of pre-screening, expert peer review, structured scoring, and editor-led decision gating. This page documents each stage — the checklists, the reviewer duties, the scoring rubric, and the decision matrix — so authors, reviewers and editors work from the same, auditable playbook.
End-to-end editorial workflow
From submission to publication, every manuscript follows this fixed path. Each node below corresponds to a numbered stage described in the sections that follow.
Editorial pre-screening & the 12-point gating checklist
Within 3 business days of submission, the editorial office runs a technical + ethical + originality screen against a fixed 12-point checklist. Any single failed gate stops external review. The manuscript is either returned to the author with actionable feedback or desk-rejected with a written reason.
| Checklist gate | Criteria for a PASS |
|---|---|
| Scope & article type | Matches Aims & Scope; article type is a listed category. |
| Anonymised manuscript | Author names, affiliations, funding & acknowledgements are stripped from the main file. |
| Structured abstract | ≤ 300 words with the required IMRaD headings. |
| Reporting standard | CONSORT / PRISMA / STROBE / CARE checklist supplied where applicable. |
| Ethics & consent | IRB/IEC approval number and patient consent statements included. |
| Data & code availability | Data-availability statement present; repository link if pre-registered. |
| Conflict of interest | COI form signed by every author. |
| Author contributions | CRediT statement supplied. |
| Plagiarism (iThenticate) | Similarity index ≤ 15% (excluding references & standard clinical phrasing). |
| AI-generated content | AI use is disclosed; no fabricated citations or images. |
| Language & formatting | Readable English; figures ≥ 300 dpi; tables cited in text. |
| Registration | Trial registration ID (RCTs) or protocol reference (systematic reviews). |
Assignment logic — matched by section and expertise
The Editor-in-Chief (or an Associate Editor on rotation) assigns each checklist-cleared manuscript to a Section Editor whose declared expertise matches the article's specialty tags. The Section Editor then invites at least two independent external reviewers, drawn from the reviewer pool and filtered by:
- Sub-specialty match (MeSH-level tags on the manuscript)
- No shared institution or recent co-authorship with any author (last 3 years)
- No declared personal, financial or competing interest
- Balanced geography — reviewers from at least 2 different countries when possible
- Track record — timely completion of previous reviews and quality score ≥ 3.5/5
- Availability — no more than 2 concurrent open assignments per reviewer
What each reviewer does — the six-step review loop
Every reviewer follows the same fixed six-step loop. The loop is enforced by the editorial platform: a reviewer cannot submit the final recommendation until every required section of the structured form has been completed.
Reviewer duties & conduct
| Duty | Expected behaviour |
|---|---|
| Response window | Accept or decline the invitation within 3 business days. |
| Confidentiality | Do not share the manuscript, its data, or its ideas with anyone outside the review. |
| Anonymity | Do not attempt to identify the authors; do not reveal yourself in the review text. |
| Conflict of interest | Decline if any personal, financial, competitive or institutional COI exists. |
| AI tools | Do NOT paste the manuscript into public LLMs. Approved secure tooling only. |
| Scope of review | Assess scientific validity, novelty, methods, ethics and clarity — not personal style. |
| Constructive tone | Frame comments as improvements. No ad-hominem or dismissive language. |
| Turnaround | Return the completed structured review within 21 calendar days of accepting. |
| Additional data | Request raw data or code from the editor — never directly from the authors. |
The 4-dimension × 5-point rubric
Each reviewer scores the manuscript on four dimensions — Originality (25%), Methodology (30%), Significance (25%), Clarity (20%). Scores are integer values from 1 (worst) to 5 (best). The platform computes a per-reviewer weighted total, and then averages across all reviewers to yield the aggregate score used by the editorial decision matrix below.
- 5 — Substantially novel; fills a clear gap in the literature.
- 4 — Meaningful incremental advance over existing work.
- 3 — Confirms known findings in a new setting/population.
- 2 — Largely duplicative of published work.
- 1 — No discernible novelty; not suitable for the journal.
- 5 — Rigorous design; sample size justified; analysis pre-specified.
- 4 — Sound design with minor methodological questions.
- 3 — Adequate but with clear methodological limitations.
- 2 — Serious flaws that threaten validity.
- 1 — Study design invalidates the conclusions.
- 5 — Practice-changing implications for clinical care.
- 4 — Clear clinical or scientific implications.
- 3 — Useful for a defined sub-specialty audience.
- 2 — Marginal impact; niche relevance.
- 1 — Not clinically or scientifically relevant.
- 5 — Excellent writing; figures and tables self-explanatory.
- 4 — Well written; minor edits suggested.
- 3 — Understandable but needs substantial editing.
- 2 — Poor structure; difficult to follow.
- 1 — Unreadable in its current form.
Every reviewer's overall recommendation (Accept / Minor / Major / Reject) is recorded alongside the numeric score and is visible only to the handling editor.
Gating matrix — how the aggregate score becomes a decision
The handling editor uses the aggregate score together with the reviewers' written recommendations to arrive at one of four decisions. When the two reviewers' aggregate scores differ by ≥ 2 points or their overall recommendations conflict (e.g. Accept vs. Reject), a third reviewer is invited and the Section Editor acts as arbiter.
| Aggregate score | Decision track | Editor action |
|---|---|---|
| ≥ 4.20 | ACCEPT track | Direct accept or minor revision |
| 3.40 – 4.19 | MINOR revision | Reviewer clarifications only |
| 2.60 – 3.39 | MAJOR revision | Additional analyses / rewrites; R2 mandatory |
| 1.80 – 2.59 | REJECT + option to resubmit | Fundamental redesign or new experiments |
| < 1.80 | REJECT | Editor issues final decision |
How revisions are re-reviewed
- Authors submit a point-by-point response plus a tracked-changes copy. Both are visible to the same reviewers in round 2.
- For minor revisions the handling editor may verify the changes without re-sending to reviewers.
- For major revisions the same reviewers are re-invited. New reviewers are only added if a reviewer declines round 2 or an entirely new concern is raised.
- A manuscript may enter at most two full revision rounds. Anything not acceptable after R2 receives a final Reject.
Research integrity, confidentiality and AI-tool policy
The manuscript, its data and every review are strictly confidential. Reviewers may not disclose, cite or reuse any part of an under-review manuscript.
Every submission is run through iThenticate. A similarity score > 15% (excluding references) triggers a request for revision or a desk reject.
Authors must disclose any AI assistance. Reviewers must NOT upload manuscripts into public LLMs. AI cannot be listed as a co-author under any circumstance.
Original data, code and analysis pipelines must be available on reasonable request. Pre-registration is encouraged for clinical trials and systematic reviews.
Post-publication corrections follow COPE flowcharts. Serious ethical breaches lead to editorial expression of concern or retraction.
Confidential complaints go to editor@medicianx.com. They are triaged within 5 business days by the Editor-in-Chief.
Editorial timelines
- Editorial pre-screening≤ 3 business days
- Reviewer invitation to acceptance≤ 3 business days
- First peer-review decision4–6 weeks
- Author revision window (minor)30 days
- Author revision window (major)60 days
- Second-round decision≤ 3 weeks
- Production & DOI registration≤ 2 weeks after acceptance
Appeals & complaints
Authors may appeal an editorial decision by writing to the Editor-in-Chief at editor@medicianx.com within 30 days of the decision, providing a point-by-point rebuttal of the reviewers' concerns. Appeals are considered by the Editor-in-Chief and a non-conflicted Associate Editor. Their decision is final.