Peer Review Policy

1. Purpose of Peer Review

The peer review process at the Medical Technology Journal of Applied Science (MTJAS) is a cornerstone of our commitment to publishing high-quality, scientifically sound research. Its primary purpose is to ensure that all manuscripts meet the highest standards of academic rigor, originality, and relevance to the journal's scope before publication. Through constructive feedback from experts in the field, peer review helps authors improve the quality and clarity of their work.

2. Peer Review Process Overview

MTJAS operates a rigorous double-blind peer review process. This means that both the identities of the authors and the reviewers are kept confidential from one another throughout the entire process.

The review process follows these key steps:

  • Initial Editorial Assessment: Upon submission, the Editor-in-Chief conducts an initial screening to ensure the manuscript fits the journal's scope, adheres to ethical standards, and meets basic formatting requirements. Submissions that do not pass this stage may be rejected without further review.

  • Reviewer Selection: The Editor-in-Chief selects at least two external reviewers who are recognized experts in the relevant subject area of the manuscript. Reviewers are chosen based on their expertise, reputation, and lack of any potential conflicts of interest.

  • Manuscript Evaluation: Reviewers are asked to provide a comprehensive and objective evaluation of the manuscript. They assess the work based on its scientific merit, methodological soundness, originality, clarity of presentation, and significance to the field of medical technology.

  • Editorial Decision: Based on the detailed reports and recommendations from the reviewers, the Editor-in-Chief makes a final decision. The possible outcomes are:

    • Accept: The manuscript is suitable for publication as is.

    • Minor Revisions: The manuscript requires minor changes before it can be accepted.

    • Major Revisions: The manuscript requires significant revisions and a second round of review.

    • Reject: The manuscript is not suitable for publication in its current form.

3. Reviewer Responsibilities and Ethics

Reviewers for MTJAS are expected to adhere to the highest standards of professional conduct. Their responsibilities include:

  • Confidentiality: Treating the manuscript as a confidential document.

  • Objectivity: Providing an unbiased and constructive assessment based purely on the merits of the work.

  • Timeliness: Submitting their review within the specified deadline.

  • Disclosure of Conflicts: Declaring any potential conflicts of interest that could affect their judgment.

  • Ethical Conduct: Alerting the Editor-in-Chief to any suspicions of plagiarism, data fabrication, or other ethical misconduct.