Peer review policy and workflow

National Journal of Medical Education is committed to maintaining the highest standards of scholarly publishing in the field of medical education. All manuscripts submitted undergo rigorous peer review to ensure scientific accuracy, methodological soundness, relevance to medical education, originality, ethical compliance, and contribution to the field.

We follow the recommendations of the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) and the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) in our peer review processes.

Type of Peer Review
The journal employs a double-blind peer review process. This means:

  • The identities of the authors are concealed from the reviewers.
  • The identities of the reviewers are concealed from the authors.

This approach promotes impartiality, minimizes bias, and focuses evaluation solely on the scientific and educational merit of the work.

Confidentiality
All submitted manuscripts are treated as confidential. Reviewers must not disclose, discuss, or use unpublished materials from manuscripts for their own research or personal gain without explicit written permission from the authors and the Editor-in-Chief.

Conflicts of Interest
Reviewers are required to declare any potential conflicts of interest (e.g., personal, professional, financial, or competitive relationships with the authors or their institutions). If a conflict exists, the reviewer must decline the invitation or inform the editorial office immediately.

Peer Review Workflow
The peer review process at the National Journal of Medical Education is designed to be fair, timely, and constructive. The typical workflow is as follows:

  1. Submission and Initial Screening (1–7 days)
    Upon submission via the online system, the manuscript receives an automated acknowledgment.
    The Editorial Office and/or Editor-in-Chief (or assigned Handling Editor) conducts an initial assessment to check:
    • Alignment with the journal’s scope and aims.
    • Compliance with submission guidelines and ethical standards.
    • Basic quality, originality, and relevance to medical education.
      Manuscripts that do not meet these criteria may be desk-rejected without external review, with brief feedback provided to the authors.
  2. Assignment to Reviewers (within 7–14 days of passing initial screening)
    Suitable manuscripts are assigned to at least two independent external reviewers with expertise in medical education or the relevant sub-topic.
    Reviewers are selected based on their knowledge, absence of conflicts, and availability. Authors may suggest potential reviewers (with justification) and/or indicate individuals to exclude (with reasons), but the final selection rests with the editorial team.
  3. Peer Review (typically 3–6 weeks)
    Reviewers evaluate the manuscript for:
    • Originality and novelty.
    • Soundness of methodology and educational/research design.
    • Validity and reliability of results/findings.
    • Clarity of presentation and relevance to medical education practice/policy.
    • Ethical considerations (e.g., IRB approval where applicable).
    • Appropriate referencing and avoidance of plagiarism.
      Reviewers provide detailed, constructive comments and recommend one of the following:
    • Accept (as is or with minor editorial changes).
    • Minor revision.
    • Major revision.
    • Reject.
  4. Editorial Decision (within 1–2 weeks after receiving reviewer reports)
    The Handling Editor (or Editor-in-Chief) synthesizes the reviewer reports and makes a decision. In cases of divergent reviews, an additional reviewer or Editorial Board member may be consulted.
    The decision is communicated to the corresponding author along with reviewer comments (anonymized).
  5. Revision and Re-review
    Authors are typically given 4 weeks for minor revisions and 8 weeks for major revisions (extensions may be granted on request).
    Revised manuscripts may undergo re-review by the original reviewers or new ones, depending on the extent of changes.
  6. Final Decision and Production
    Once revisions satisfy the reviewers and editors, the manuscript is accepted.
    The final decision rests with the Editor-in-Chief.
    Accepted articles proceed to copyediting, proofreading, and online publication (with a DOI assigned).

Average Timelines
We aim to provide a first decision within 6–10 weeks of submission for most manuscripts. However, complex submissions or reviewer availability may extend this period. We appreciate authors' patience and communicate delays promptly.

Appeals
Authors may appeal a rejection decision by submitting a formal appeal letter (with point-by-point response to reviewer/editor comments) to the Editor-in-Chief within 30 days. Appeals are considered only if there is evidence of procedural error or bias; they are not a mechanism for disputing scientific judgment.

This policy ensures transparency, fairness, and quality in publishing medical education scholarship. For any queries, please contact the editorial office.