Peer Review Process

Ensuring Quality, Transparency, and Scientific Integrity

Ramsay Sodh Ramsay Scholar has a rigorous peer review system. The review is done double-blind, meaning the reviewers do not know who the author is, ensuring that only high quality material is published and that the entire process is fair and transparent. The review helps to ensure that the research meets standards of validity and quality and to improve the author’s manuscript. Thus, anything published should be of high quality.

Peer Review Model

Ramsay Sodh Ramsay Scholar adopts a double-blind peer review system, where:

  • The identities of authors are concealed from reviewers
  • The identities of reviewers are concealed from authors

This approach ensures an unbiased and impartial evaluation of all submissions.

Stages of the Peer Review Process

1. Initial Submission and Screening

Manuscripts are submitted via email or the journal submission system The editorial office conducts an initial screening to assess the following:

  • Scope and relevance to the journal
  • Basic formatting and completeness
  • Compliance with ethical standards

Manuscripts that do not meet requirements may be rejected or returned for revision before review

2. Editorial Assessment

The editor-in-chief or assigned editor evaluates:

  • Originality and novelty
  • Scientific quality and methodological soundness
  • Suitable manuscripts are forwarded for peer review

3. Reviewer Assignment

Each manuscript is assigned to at least two independent expert reviewers. Reviewers are selected based on:

  • Subject expertise
  • Research experience
  • Absence of conflicts of interest

4. Review Process

Reviewers evaluate the manuscript based on:

  • Scientific validity and methodological rigor
  • Originality and contribution to the field
  • Clarity of presentation and structure
  • Relevance to medical and public health research
  • Ethical compliance

Reviewers provide:

  • Detailed comments for authors
  • Confidential recommendations to editors

5. Editorial Decision

Based on reviewer feedback, the editor makes one of the following decisions:

  • Accept without revisions
  • Minor revisions required
  • Major revisions required
  • Reject

Authors are notified along with reviewer comments.

6. Revision by Authors

  • Authors must address all reviewer comments
  • A point-by-point response is required
  • Revised manuscripts may be sent for re-review if necessary

7. Final Decision and Acceptance

  • After satisfactory revision, the manuscript is accepted
  • The editorial team ensures final quality checks before publication

Review Timeline

  • When we first look at a manuscript, it usually takes one to two weeks.
  • Then it goes to peer review, which can take three to six weeks.
  • Thereafter, we decide whether it needs revision, and this decision takes two to four weeks.
  • So in total it can take six to ten weeks.
  • The time frame can be different depending on how complicated the manuscript is.

Ramsay Sodh Ramsay Scholar demonstrates its commitment to fair and ethical publishing in the way it handles manuscript reviews. This ensures that all what Ramsay Sodh Ramsay Scholar journal publishes is quality content and advances the science and global health.