Peer Review Process

All research articles, reviews and short communications published in JMRC are peer reviewed. The journal uses a double-anonymous model so that every manuscript receives a fair, rigorous and unbiased assessment.

Review model

Double-anonymous: authors and reviewers are not told each other's identities

Number of reviewers

At least two independent external reviewers per manuscript

Initial editorial check

Usually within 7 days of submission

First decision (target)

4–6 weeks after submission

Final decision

Made by the handling editor or the Editor-in-Chief

The review process

1. Submission and technical check The editorial office checks that the submission is complete, anonymised and prepared according to the author guidelines.
2. Editorial screening An editor assesses the scope, quality and originality of the manuscript, including a similarity check. Manuscripts that are out of scope or clearly unsuitable are declined without external review, usually within 7 days, so that the authors can submit elsewhere without delay.
3. Reviewer assignment The handling editor invites at least two independent experts in the field.
4. Peer review Reviewers assess the manuscript and submit their reports, normally within three weeks.
5. Decision The handling editor considers the reports and makes a decision, which is sent to the authors with the anonymised reports.
6. Revision If revisions are requested, the revised manuscript and the authors' response are assessed by the editor and, where necessary, by the original reviewers.
7. Acceptance and production Accepted manuscripts are copyedited, typeset and published online once the authors have approved the proofs.

Selection of reviewers

Reviewers are chosen for their expertise in the subject of the manuscript and their publication record. Editors avoid reviewers with potential conflicts of interest, including recent co-authors of the authors and colleagues at the same institution. Authors may suggest reviewers and ask for individuals to be excluded; editors take these requests into account but are not bound by them. The identity and expertise of reviewers suggested by authors are verified before they are invited.

Editorial decisions

• Accept: the manuscript is accepted in its current form, subject to copyediting.
• Minor revision: small changes are needed; the revised version is usually assessed by the editor.
• Major revision: substantial changes are needed; the revised version is usually returned to the reviewers.
• Reject and resubmit: the work is promising but needs changes too extensive for a revision; a new submission is welcome.
• Reject: the manuscript is not suitable for publication in JMRC.

Decisions are based on the scientific merit of the work and the content of the reviewers' reports, not simply on the number of reviewers who recommend acceptance. Editors may seek an additional opinion when reports disagree.

Confidentiality

Manuscripts and reviews are confidential. Editors and reviewers must not share them or use unpublished information for their own purposes, and reviewers must not upload manuscripts to generative AI tools or other external services.

Manuscripts from editors

Submissions from the Editor-in-Chief, other editors or board members are handled by an editor with no conflict of interest and follow the standard review process. The authoring editor has no access to the review of their own manuscript.

Content that is not peer reviewed

Editorials are reviewed by the editorial team only and are clearly identified as editorials. All other content is peer reviewed as described on this page.

Appeals

Authors who believe that a decision was based on a factual error or a misunderstanding may appeal. The process is described under Corrections, Retractions & Appeals.