Peer Review Policy

IJTMH operates a rigorous, fair, and transparent peer review process to ensure the quality and integrity of all published research. All research articles, review articles, short communications, and case studies submitted to IJTMH are subject to peer review. Letters, editorials, and book reviews may be reviewed at the editor's discretion.

Review Model

IJTMH employs a Double-Blind Peer Review model as its standard peer review process. Under this system:

  • The identities of the authors are concealed from the reviewers throughout the review process.
  • The identities of the reviewers are concealed from the authors.
  • This approach minimises the potential for bias and ensures that manuscripts are evaluated solely on their scientific merit.

Authors are required to prepare their manuscripts in a manner that does not reveal their identity. Any identifying information (including author names, affiliations, funding acknowledgements) must be removed from the manuscript file and included only in a separate Title Page submitted at the time of submission.

Editorial Assessment (Pre-Review Screening)

Upon submission, every manuscript undergoes an initial editorial assessment by the Editor-in-Chief or an assigned Associate Editor. Manuscripts may be returned to authors without external review if they:

  • Fall outside the scope of the journal.
  • Are not formatted according to the Author Guidelines.
  • Exhibit a similarity index exceeding the acceptable threshold (typically 20%, excluding references).
  • Are of insufficient quality or clarity to warrant peer review.
  • Contain obvious ethical violations.

Authors will typically receive notification of the desk decision within 7–10 working days of submission.

Reviewer Selection

Manuscripts that pass the editorial screening are assigned to a minimum of two independent peer reviewers with relevant subject expertise. Reviewers are selected from the journal's reviewer database, editorial board, or through targeted expert searches. The editor shall endeavour to identify reviewers who:

  • Have no known conflict of interest with the authors.
  • Hold relevant expertise in the subject matter of the manuscript.
  • Have not reviewed the manuscript for another journal.

Authors may suggest preferred reviewers or request the exclusion of specific individuals in their cover letter. The editor is not obliged to follow such requests but will consider them.

Review Timeline

Stage

Target Timeframe

Initial Editorial Assessment

7–10 working days

Reviewer Invitation & Acceptance

7–14 days

Peer Review Period

21–30 days

Editorial Decision After Review

7–10 days

Revision Submission (Minor)

21 days

Revision Submission (Major)

60 days

Final Decision After Revision

14 days

Total (Target, First Submission)

4–10 weeks

 

Reviewer Obligations

Individuals invited to review a manuscript are expected to:

  1. Declare any potential conflicts of interest promptly upon receipt of the invitation.
  2. Decline the invitation if they do not have sufficient expertise to review the manuscript.
  3. Decline the invitation if they cannot complete the review within the requested timeframe.
  4. Maintain strict confidentiality regarding the manuscript and all related correspondence.
  5. Provide a fair, objective, constructive, and evidence-based review.
  6. Avoid using unpublished information from the manuscript in their own research.

Possible Editorial Decisions

Following the completion of peer review, the editor will communicate one of the following decisions to the corresponding author:

Accept

The manuscript is accepted for publication as submitted, or with only minor typographical or formatting corrections that do not require re-review.

Minor Revision

The manuscript requires minor revisions. Authors are requested to revise and resubmit within the specified timeframe. The revised manuscript may be reviewed by the editor alone without returning to reviewers.

Major Revision

The manuscript requires substantial revisions. Authors are requested to revise and resubmit. The revised manuscript will typically be returned to the same reviewers for re-evaluation.

Reject and Resubmit

The manuscript has significant limitations but may be resubmitted after substantial restructuring or additional research. Resubmission will be treated as a new submission.

Reject

The manuscript is not suitable for publication in IJTMH. Manuscripts rejected on grounds of scope, quality, or ethical concerns will not be reconsidered.

Appeals

Authors who believe their manuscript was rejected unfairly may submit a formal appeal to the Editor-in-Chief within 30 days of the rejection notification. Appeals should include a point-by-point rebuttal of the reviewers' or editor's comments. Appeals based solely on disagreement without substantive reasoning will not be considered. The Editor-in-Chief's decision on appeals is final.

Reviewer Recognition

IJTMH acknowledges the essential contribution of peer reviewers to the integrity of the scholarly publishing process. Reviewers who complete their reviews are recognised in the journal's Annual Reviewer Acknowledgement section. With reviewer consent, individual reviewer contributions may be acknowledged publicly in accordance with COPE guidelines on reviewer recognition.

AI Assistance in Peer Review

Reviewers must not use AI language tools (e.g., ChatGPT, Gemini, or equivalent generative AI tools) to write reviews or to process manuscript content. Any use of AI to assist in preparing a review must be disclosed to the editor. The responsibility for the review's content and accuracy rests entirely with the human reviewer.