Peer Review Policy

Review Model

All research content published in the Journal of Evidence-Based Medical Research — original research articles, systematic reviews and meta-analyses, case reports, short communications and narrative reviews — is subject to double external peer review. Neither authors nor reviewers are made aware of each other's identity. Authors are therefore required to submit an anonymised manuscript file with all identifying information removed, alongside a separate title page.

Editorials, book reviews and correspondence are not externally peer reviewed and undergo editorial review by the Editor-in-Chief or a designated editor. All non-peer-reviewed content is clearly labelled as such at the article level.

The Review Process

  1. Initial submission check. The editorial office verifies that the submission is complete and conforms to the Author Guidelines, including the presence of an ethics approval statement, competing interest disclosure, and the applicable reporting checklist.
  2. Similarity screening. Every submission is screened as described in the Similarity Screening and Plagiarism Policy.
  3. Editorial assessment. The Editor-in-Chief or a Section Editor assesses the manuscript for scope, originality, methodological soundness and clarity. Manuscripts that fall outside the journal's scope or that do not meet a minimum methodological threshold are rejected without external review. Authors are notified of desk rejection within 07 working days.
  4. External review. Manuscripts passing editorial assessment are sent to a minimum of two independent external reviewers with relevant subject expertise. Reviewers are asked to complete their assessment within 21 days. Manuscripts reporting quantitative analyses may additionally be referred to the Statistical Editor.
  5. Editorial decision. Following receipt of reviews, the handling editor issues one of four decisions: Accept; Minor Revision; Major Revision; or Reject. Where reviewer recommendations conflict materially, a third reviewer is invited.
  6. Revision. Authors submitting a revised manuscript must provide a point-by-point response to each reviewer comment. Revised manuscripts are normally returned to the original reviewers.
  7. Final decision. The Editor-in-Chief holds final responsibility for all acceptance decisions. Acceptance is not guaranteed at any stage of the process.

Indicative Timelines

Submission to first decision 4–6 weeks
Acceptance to online publication 3–4 weeks

These are median figures based on the journal's actual performance and are reviewed annually. They are targets, not guarantees; complex manuscripts may take longer.

Reviewer Selection and Conduct

Reviewers are selected on the basis of subject expertise and publication record. The journal does not invite reviewers from the same institution as any author, recent co-authors, or individuals with any other identifiable conflict of interest.

Authors may suggest potential reviewers and may request the exclusion of specific individuals with a stated reason. The handling editor is under no obligation to follow either request, and suggested reviewers are independently verified before invitation.

Reviewers are bound by the confidentiality and conduct obligations set out in the Publication Ethics and Malpractice Statement, and by the Generative Artificial Intelligence Policy.

Appeals

Authors who consider that a decision was reached in error may appeal in accordance with the Complaints and Appeals Policy.

Transparency

The journal publishes the date of receipt, date of acceptance and date of publication on every article. Aggregate acceptance rate and median turnaround times are published annually in an editorial.