Scientific manuscripts submitted to Medicine, Science and Education undergo initial editorial assessment and independent peer review. The purpose of review is to assess scientific significance, methodological soundness, the reliability of the findings, and compliance with ethical requirements.
1. Initial Editorial Assessment
The editorial team checks the completeness of the submission, its relevance to the journal’s scope and article type, formatting, anonymization, required declarations, and compliance with ethical requirements. All scientific submissions undergo text-similarity screening, with substantive interpretation of the results by an editor.
The scientific editor assesses the importance of the research question, methodological suitability, and whether sufficient information is available for peer review.
Before external review, a manuscript may be returned for technical revision or rejected with a reasoned explanation if it falls outside the journal’s scope, lacks an independent scientific contribution, contains an irreparable design flaw, or involves a documented violation.
Initial assessment is completed within 10 calendar days of receipt of a complete submission. If this period is extended, the author is informed of the reason and the revised deadline.
2. Review Model
Original research articles, reviews, methodological articles, brief research reports, study protocols, and case reports undergo double-anonymous peer review by at least two independent external experts.
Reviewers receive anonymized submission materials. Their identities are known to the editorial team but are not disclosed to the authors.
Both reviewers must be independent of the authors and the publisher and must not belong to the journal’s editorial office, editorial board, or editorial council. Individuals employed by an author’s institution are not appointed to review that author’s manuscript.
If a reviewer identifies the authors of an anonymized manuscript, the reviewer must notify the handling editor and reconfirm the absence of a conflict of interest. The availability of a preprint does not remove the requirements for anonymization and reviewer independence.
3. Reviewer Selection and Conflicts of Interest
Reviewers are selected on the basis of subject expertise, current scientific publications, and experience with the relevant methods. The editorial team verifies each reviewer’s identity, affiliation, and professional contact details through independent sources. International experts are involved in international assessment.
Individuals involved in the same project, the authors’ academic supervisors or subordinates, close relatives, and co-authors within the preceding three years are not appointed as reviewers. Earlier relationships are assessed according to their significance.
Reviewers must disclose circumstances that may affect their impartiality and decline the assignment if they lack the necessary expertise or have a significant conflict of interest.
Authors’ reviewer suggestions are advisory. The editorial team verifies suggested candidates and appoints at least one reviewer independently of the authors’ recommendations. Requests to exclude a particular reviewer are considered where a justification is provided.
Manuscripts authored by the Editor-in-Chief, members of the journal’s editorial bodies, or the publisher’s senior management are assigned to an independent external handling editor. These authors do not participate in the appointment of the editor or reviewers, confidential deliberations, or decisions concerning their own manuscripts.
4. Assessment Criteria
Reviewers assess:
- relevance to the journal’s scope and scientific and practical significance;
- the research question, originality, and contribution to knowledge;
- study design, sampling, methods, and reproducibility;
- the appropriateness of statistical or other analyses;
- completeness of the results and consistency between conclusions and data;
- the quality of the discussion and presentation of limitations;
- research ethics and registration requirements;
- compliance with applicable reporting guidelines;
- availability of data, protocols, and supplementary materials;
- the quality of the abstract, text, tables, figures, and references;
- completeness of declarations, within the information available to the reviewer.
For original research articles and systematic reviews, the “Research in Context” section is also assessed.
Reports follow the journal’s review form and include major and minor comments, supporting explanations, and a recommendation to the editor. Requests for additional citations must be scientifically justified and explained.
Methodological and statistical assessment is mandatory for randomized trials, quantitative meta-analyses, studies developing or validating prediction models, and work involving complex analyses beyond the expertise of the principal reviewers. This assessment may form part of either external review. An additional specialist is appointed where the principal reviewers do not have the necessary expertise.
5. Confidentiality and Review Timelines
Manuscripts, supplementary materials, and review reports are confidential. Materials may be shared with another specialist only with the editor’s prior permission, following a conflict-of-interest check and documentation of that specialist’s involvement.
Reviewers must not use unpublished ideas or data for their own benefit, contact authors directly about an anonymous manuscript, or upload confidential materials to publicly accessible artificial intelligence services.
The usual review period is 21 calendar days after the reviewer accepts the assignment. This may be extended to 30 days by agreement with the editor. A replacement reviewer is appointed in the event of withdrawal or overdue review.
Superficial, abusive, or questionable reports are excluded with a documented reason and replaced by an independent assessment.
6. Decisions and Revision
Reviewers’ recommendations are advisory. Where reports conflict, the editor evaluates the arguments and may commission additional assessment. Decisions are not made by simply counting positive and negative recommendations.
Following assessment, the authorized editor issues one of the following reasoned decisions:
- acceptance;
- minor revision;
- major revision with reassessment;
- rejection.
Authors receive the substantive comments needed to prepare their response, excluding confidential information and materials relating to an ongoing investigation of potential misconduct.
Authors are allowed 14 calendar days for minor revision and 30 calendar days for major revision, with extensions by agreement. Revised submissions must include the amended manuscript and a point-by-point response to every comment. Substantial changes to methods, results, or conclusions undergo further peer review.
The target for the first decision following external review is 60 calendar days from receipt of a complete submission. If this period is extended, the editorial team explains the reason and provides a revised deadline, followed by progress updates at least once every 30 days.
7. Other Content and Special Issues
Editorials without new research data, editorial notes, and technical correction notices undergo editorial assessment, with the content type and assessment procedure identified.
Editorials and scholarly correspondence presenting new data undergo external review under the standard procedure. Supplementary scientific materials are assessed together with the main manuscript. Thematic and guest-edited issues follow the same requirements as regular issues.
No fees are charged for manuscript submission or external peer review. The procedure for challenging an editorial decision is provided in the “Complaints and Appeals” section.