TMP

Peer Review Process

The TMP Universal Journal of Medical Research and Surgical Techniques follows a stringent peer review process to ensure that all submitted manuscripts meet the highest standards of academic rigor, scientific quality, and ethical publishing. Below is an overview of the journal's peer review process.

  1. Initial Submission Check
  • Editorial Screening: After a manuscript is submitted, the editorial team conducts an initial screening to ensure that the submission adheres to the journal’s scope, formatting requirements, and ethical guidelines.
  • Desk Rejection: Manuscripts that do not meet these basic requirements or are out of scope may be rejected at this stage without being sent for peer review.
  1. Type of Peer Review
  • Double-Blind Peer Review: The journal uses a double-blind peer review system, where both the reviewers and authors remain anonymous throughout the process. This ensures that the evaluation is free from bias and based solely on the content and quality of the manuscript.
  1. Assignment of Reviewers
  • Reviewer Selection: The Editor-in-Chief or a designated associate editor assigns the manuscript to two or more independent reviewers who are experts in the subject matter of the manuscript. The reviewers are selected based on their expertise, experience, and track record in the field.
  • Conflict of Interest: Reviewers are asked to declare any potential conflicts of interest before accepting the review assignment. If a conflict is identified, the reviewer will be replaced.
  1. Reviewer Evaluation
  • Criteria for Evaluation: Reviewers are asked to evaluate the manuscript based on the following criteria:
    • Originality: Does the manuscript provide novel insights or make a significant contribution to the field?
    • Scientific Rigor: Is the methodology sound and the data analysis robust and accurate?
    • Ethical Standards: Does the manuscript adhere to ethical guidelines, particularly concerning human or animal studies?
    • Clarity and Structure: Is the manuscript well-organized, clear, and coherent in its presentation?
    • Relevance: Does the manuscript align with the journal's scope and contribute to its subject area?

Reviewers provide constructive feedback to help authors improve their manuscript, even if it is ultimately rejected.

  1. Review Outcome
  • Reviewer Recommendations: After evaluation, reviewers recommend one of the following outcomes:
    • Accept: The manuscript is ready for publication without further modifications.
    • Minor Revisions: The manuscript requires small changes but is generally acceptable for publication.
    • Major Revisions: The manuscript has potential but requires substantial revisions before it can be reconsidered.
    • Reject: The manuscript does not meet the journal’s standards or is not suitable for publication.
  • Decision by Editor: Based on the reviewers’ reports, the Editor-in-Chief or associate editor makes the final decision on the manuscript. If necessary, a third reviewer may be consulted in cases where the reviews differ significantly.
  1. Revisions and Resubmission
  • Minor and Major Revisions: If revisions are requested, the authors are given a specific period (usually 2–4 weeks) to address the reviewers’ comments and resubmit the revised manuscript. The revised submission is typically sent back to the same reviewers for further evaluation.
  • Resubmission After Rejection: If the manuscript is rejected but the authors significantly improve it, they may resubmit it as a new submission, provided that the reviewers’ major concerns have been adequately addressed.
  1. Review Timelines
  • Timely Process: The journal aims to ensure a timely review process. Typically, reviewers are given 2–4 weeks to complete their evaluation, and the entire peer review process (from submission to final decision) usually takes 6–8 weeks, depending on the complexity of the manuscript and the availability of reviewers.
  1. Transparency and Confidentiality
  • Confidentiality: All manuscripts are treated as confidential documents. Reviewers must not share or discuss the manuscripts with anyone outside the journal without permission.
  • Anonymity: The journal maintains the anonymity of both the authors and reviewers throughout the review process to ensure an unbiased evaluation.
  1. Appeals
  • Appeal Process: Authors who disagree with the decision may submit an appeal. The appeal must include a detailed response to the reviewers’ comments and provide a justification for reconsideration. The appeal will be reviewed by the Editor-in-Chief and, if deemed necessary, sent for further peer review.

Publication Process of UJMRST

 The Publication Process Is Consisting With The Following Steps. The Ultimate Objectives Of This Process Are Quality. 

  1. After Receiving The Manuscript We Will Send A Submission Of Acknowledgement E-Mail to the Author.
  2. Manuscripts Will Be Checked By Plagiarism Checker Software.
  3. Primary Quality Will Be Checked By The Editor.
  4. The Manuscript Will Be Sent For Double Blinded Review.
  5. Based On The Double Blinded Review Editor Will Take Decision And The Decision Will Be Communicated To The Author. Decisions Can Be Three Types Like Accepted Without Revision, Resubmit With Major/Minor Revisions, Rejected.
  6. After The Final Review Process If The Paper Will Accepted, We Will Send A Payment Request to the Author.
  7. Author Need to Deposit Publication Fee after the Payment Request.
  8. After submission of copyright and fee article will publish.