Peer-Review Procedure
All submitted manuscripts undergo a mandatory peer review process to ensure the quality, correctness, and validity of each published article and the presented results.
The Editor-in-Chief, along with members of the Editorial Board, assesses the scientific value of the manuscript and appoints at least two reviewers. Reviewers, who are recognized experts in the manuscript's subject area, assess the manuscripts' compliance with the stated Purpose, Aims, and Scope of the Journal, as well as with Publication Ethics and Authors Guidelines. The Editorial Office establishes these criteria, and the reviewers verify their adherence during the evaluation process.
In the review process, both the author(s) and the reviewers remain anonymous, employing a double-anonymized reviewing approach.
Reviewers are required to disclose any relationships or activities that could potentially influence their assessment of the manuscript. If there is an actual or potential conflict of interest related to the manuscript in question, reviewers must declare it and abstain from participating in the review process. Specifically, a reviewer cannot be the author or co-author of the peer-reviewed work, the scientific supervisor of the author seeking a scientific degree, or an employee of the department where any of the manuscript authors is employed.
The review is intended to provide an objective evaluation of the manuscript, analyzing both its scientific and methodological strengths and weaknesses. The reviewer's opinion should be clearly stated in one of the following categories: a) the manuscript is recommended for publication; b) the manuscript is recommended for publication after addressing the specified comments; c) it is suggested to subject the manuscript to further review; d) not recommended for publication.
While a peer-reviewed journal considers reviewers' recommendations, whether favorable or negative, it is not obligated to strictly adhere to them. The ultimate responsibility for the selection of all content lies with the journal's editor. Editorial decisions may be influenced by factors beyond the manuscript's quality, such as its suitability for the journal. The editor retains the authority to reject any article at any stage before publication.
Peer-review procedure:
- The reviewer is notified via email through the Journal Submission System of their assignment to review a manuscript submitted to the Journal.
- Upon receiving the notification, the reviewer accesses the Journal Submission System through the link provided in the email, downloads the materials sent for review, and subsequently uploads their review along with any necessary comments for the editor and authors to the system. The reviewer is required to submit the review within five working days or within another period specified in the appointment letter.
- The reviewer is expected to use the provided review template.
- The review text must be uploaded to the system in two formats:
- An editable format (Word), and
- As a scanned document signed by the reviewer. If affiliated with an organization, the document should be sealed by that organization. The scanned document can be submitted in either .pdf or .jpg format.
- If the initial review included comments and the author has submitted a revised manuscript, the reviewer is expected to assess the edited manuscript and provide feedback within five working days, unless an alternative timeline has been agreed upon with the Editorial Office.
- The review containing comments is forwarded to the corresponding author for revisions, allowing them to address and incorporate corrections and additions as needed. The author(s) may choose to contest the comments, either in part or in full. Following the author's edits, the revised manuscript is resubmitted for another round of review.
- In cases where there are disagreements between the author(s) and the reviewer concerning the data presented in the manuscript, the Editorial Board reserves the right to seek an additional review from an alternative reviewer.
- The Editorial Board convenes to deliberate on the reviews and reaches a decision on whether to accept the manuscript for publication or reject it. In cases of controversy, the Editor-in-Chief has the final word.
Memo to the reviewer
Dear Reviewer!
By reviewing a manuscript submitted to the Reproductive Medicine (Central Asia) journal, you confirm that, in your opinion, this manuscript deserves (or does not deserve) publication.
You entirely determine the volume of the review. However, regardless of its volume, your review shall contain all the necessary and objective information.
The Editorial Board of the Journal guarantees that your name and the very fact of your recommendation will not become public.
At your request, you will be notified of certain remarks or comments received subsequently regarding the manuscript you have reviewed.
Your comments and suggestions regarding the organization of the Journal processes are welcome to the e-mail indicated on the Journal's website.
The Reproductive Medicine (Central Asia) Journal Editorial Board thanks you sincerely for your cooperation!
