Global Journal of Medical and Pharmaceutical Sciences (GJMPS)
E-ISSN: 2957-3629 | P-ISSN: 2957-3610
Journal Website: https://www.grpublishing.org/journals/index.php/gjmps/index
1. Overview
The Global Journal of Medical and Pharmaceutical Sciences (GJMPS) is committed to maintaining the highest standards of scholarly publishing through a rigorous, fair, and transparent peer review system. Peer review serves as a critical mechanism for ensuring the scientific validity, originality, methodological soundness, and academic quality of published research.
All submitted manuscripts undergo a double-blind peer review process, in which both authors’ and reviewers’ identities remain confidential.
2. Objectives of Peer Review
The peer review process aims to:
• Evaluate the scientific merit and originality of submissions
• Assess methodological rigor and validity
• Ensure ethical compliance and research integrity
• Improve manuscript quality through constructive feedback
• Support editorial decision-making
3. Peer Review Model
GJMPS operates a Double-Blind Peer Review System:
✔ Reviewers do not know author identities
✔ Authors do not know reviewer identities
This model minimizes bias and promotes objective evaluation.
4. Editorial Screening (Initial Assessment)
Upon submission, manuscripts undergo preliminary evaluation by the editorial office to verify:
• Alignment with journal scope
• Compliance with submission guidelines
• Academic writing quality
• Ethical declarations
• Plagiarism screening
Manuscripts may be:
• Sent for peer review
• Returned for technical revision
• Rejected at the editorial stage
5. Reviewer Assignment
Eligible manuscripts are assigned to independent expert reviewers with relevant subject expertise. Reviewers are selected based on:
• Academic specialization
• Research experience
• Publication record
• Absence of conflicts of interest
Typically, manuscripts are evaluated by two or more reviewers.
6. Evaluation Criteria
Reviewers assess manuscripts based on:
• Originality and novelty
• Scientific significance
• Methodological soundness
• Clarity and organization
• Statistical validity (if applicable)
• Ethical compliance
• Relevance to the field
Reviewers provide:
✔ Detailed comments
✔ Constructive recommendations
✔ Publication decision suggestions
7. Peer Review Outcomes
Based on reviewer reports, the editorial decision may be:
• Accept without revision
• Minor revision
• Major revision
• Reject
Authors receiving revision requests must submit:
• Revised manuscript
• Response to reviewer comments
8. Revision and Re-evaluation
Revised manuscripts may be:
• Evaluated by original reviewers
• Assessed by editors
• Sent for additional review if necessary
Editorial decisions prioritize scientific accuracy and quality enhancement.
9. Final Decision
The final publication decision is made by the Editor / Editor-in-Chief, considering:
Reviewer recommendations
Scientific merit
Ethical standards
Journal priorities
The editorial decision is final.
10. Review Timeline
While review durations may vary depending on manuscript complexity and reviewer availability, GJMPS strives to ensure:
Efficient editorial handling
Timely reviewer feedback
Transparent communication
11. Appeals and Complaints
Authors may submit reasoned appeals regarding editorial decisions. Appeals must include:
• Scientific justification
• Supporting evidence
All appeals are evaluated objectively by the editorial board.
12. Commitment to Quality and Integrity
The peer review system at GJMPS reflects the journal’s dedication to:
Scientific excellence
Editorial fairness
Academic credibility
Ethical publishing standards