Editorial Procedure

EDITORIAL PROCEDURES

Initial Checks

• All the submitted manuscripts will be checked by experienced editors to determine whether the submitted manuscript is properly prepared and whether they follow the ethical policies of the journal and contain all the necessary disclosures.
• All the submitted manuscripts will be checked for the correctness of the references. The incomplete, inappropriate, or vague/misleading references may lead to desk rejection.
• All the submitted articles will be checked for the English language at this stage and authors may be asked for language editing by any native or professional English language editor.
• The submitted articles will be screened for plagiarism using “Turnitin Plagiarism Checker” (online plagiarism detection software). Please read plagiarism policies for further details.
• Manuscripts that are not properly prepared will be returned to the authors for revision and resubmission.
• Manuscripts with insufficient originality, serious scientific or technical flaws, or lack of a significant message, or if not prepared as per journals instructions or if the article type is inappropriate are rejected without a formal peer review.

Peer-Review

The manuscript that passes the initial check/desk review, is subjected to double-blinded peer review. The manuscript will be reviewed by a minimum of two suitable experts (whose identities will remain anonymous to the authors) in the respective subject area. Please refer to our peer-review policies for details.

Editorial Decision and Revision

The reports of all the reviewers will be considered while making the decision on a submitted manuscript. Manuscripts will be edited by both editor and co-editors before being sent for type setting. Editor-In-Chief will make the final decision, based on the reviewer’s comments. The journal may consult the different experts and editor(s) in order to reach an appropriate decision. The decision may be any one of the following:

• Accept for publication, with or without any minor editorial revision
• Inform the corresponding author to revise the manuscript to address the specific concerns before a final decision is reached. Submission of the revised manuscript does not ensure acceptance.
• Reject, but inform the corresponding author that further writing might justify a resubmission.
• Decline Submission, typically on grounds of specialist interest, lack of novelty, insufficient conceptual advance, or major technical and/or interpretational problems

PROCESS AFTER Editorial Decision (ACCEPTNACE/ Rejection)

Publication process after Acceptance

Accepted papers will be passed to MARKS Medical Journal production team for publication. The author identified as the formal corresponding author for the paper will receive an email of acceptance letter. Please ensure that a complete e-mail address is provided when submitting the manuscript.

Galley Proofs and Publication: (After Acceptance)

Manuscripts that are accepted for publication are subjected to copy edited for grammar, punctuation, print style, and format. Proofs are sent approximately (6-8) weeks after acceptance via email as a link to a PDF file. Page proofs are sent through email to the corresponding author. This email will contain instructions on how to provide proof corrections to the article. Further instructions will be sent with the proof. It is therefore essential that a working e-mail address is provided for the corresponding author. Proofs should be corrected carefully; responsibility for detecting errors lies with the author. Authors are required to respond to all the reviewers and submit the point-wise clarification for the comments of the reviewers and handling editor. Authors must provide a clear response in their rebuttal letter wherever they disagree with a reviewer or editor. The corresponding author is expected to return the corrected proofs within three days. The whole process of submission of the manuscript to final decision and sending and receiving proofs is completed through the electronic / online submission and peer-review system. The MMJ editorial board tries to publish the manuscript as early as possible fulfilling all the rigorous standard journal needs.

Process after Rejection

Appeals

The MARKS Medical Journal handles complaints and appeals in accordance with the guidelines provided by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). You can find more information on this process here: https://publicationethics.org/appeals

The authors may appeal against the negative decision with suitable arguments if they feel that there is a major misunderstanding over a technical aspect or failure to understand the scientific advance shown by the manuscript. Appeals requesting a second opinion without sufficient justification will not be considered. Please write to the journal via email in order to submit an appeal. Appeals will only be considered from the original submitting author. Authors who wish to request a reevaluation of a manuscript that has been rejected can initiate this process by sending an email to the journal’s Editorial Office, including the manuscript’s ID number. Please keep in mind that the decision to reconsider a manuscript rests solely with the Editor(s). It’s important to be aware that, due to the high volume of submissions and limited space in our journals, some manuscripts may be categorized as lower priority and subsequently declined.

Authors are encouraged to provide a comprehensive explanation detailing why they believe their manuscript merits reconsideration. If the Editor(s) determine that the manuscript warrants reconsideration, the author may be requested to resubmit it as a new manuscript. This revised submission will then be assigned a new identification number and submission date and will undergo the review process as if it were a new submission.

 PEER-REVIEW POLICY, Process & Guidance

All manuscripts submitted for publication in our journals undergo strict and comprehensive peer-review. The submitted manuscripts shall be subjected to a thorough initial check, including a Plagiarism Check conducted within the Editorial Office. Leading the peer-review process shall be an Editor – usually the Editor-in-Chief or a board member of the journal, working alongside the Editorial broad. It starts with a Preliminary Review by the Editor (which is completed no later than 2 weeks  after the manuscript submission).

Peer Review Models

The review process of MARKS Medical Journal follows the double anonymized peer review process. Under this policy both the reviewers and authors identities are concealed from the reviewers, and vice versa, throughout the review process. To facilitate this, authors need to submit the ‘Title Page containing the Authors details’ and ‘Manuscript with no author details’ as 2 separate files.

Selection of the Reviewers

Manuscripts that are found apparently suitable for publication in MMJ are sent to two or more expert reviewers. Reviewer selection is a critical and important part of the publication process. During submission, the editorial board members are requested to provide names of two or three qualified reviewers who have had experience in the subject of the submitted manuscript, but this is not mandatory. The suggested reviewers should not be affiliated with the same institutes as the board members. However, the selection of these reviewers is at the sole discretion of the editors. The choice of selection is based on several factors, including a) expertise, b) reputation, c) capability of giving recommendations, d) giving enough time to review and e) our own previous experience of a reviewer’s characteristics. In the case of research manuscripts, our editors may also enlist the expertise of a statistical reviewer.

Typically, each manuscript undergoes review by a minimum of two reviewers, although there are instances when we seek the review of additional reviewers. The confidentiality of manuscripts under review is of utmost importance, and their existence should not be disclosed to anyone other than the assigned peer reviewers and our editorial staff. Peer reviewers are ethically bound to maintain strict confidentiality regarding the manuscripts they evaluate. They are prohibited from sharing any information about a specific manuscript or its content with any external parties unless they have obtained prior permission from the journal’s editors.

General and ethical guidelines to the reviewer for Review manuscript:

When anyone receive an invitation to peer review, he/she will be sent a copy of the manuscript – this will help them determine whether they wish to do the review.

• If the potential reviewer feel the paper is outside you’re his/her area of expertise or are unable to devote the necessary time, then they should let the editorial office know as soon as possible so that they can invite an alternative reviewer.

• If he/she intend to decline the invitation, they could consider nominating a colleague for the editor to contact directly.
• The reviewer usually gets 1-2 weeks’ time for the review.

We will guide our respected reviewers to send the review comments in Microsoft document, so that the review comments become specific and easy to understand.

Usually, as a minimum, MARKS Medical Journal asks reviewers to check the following:

• Is the article’s premise well-founded?
• Are the hypotheses properly addressed?
• Are the conclusions are supported by the data?
• Subjectively assess whether the article is suitable for publication or not. Detailed edits are always appreciated; it makes our job easy.
• Avoid personal judgment and criticism at all times—judge the article. This is more likely to be well received by the author and lead to better work by them.
• If the conflict of interest causes a large positive or negative bias, then it is better to decline the review request ; Every editor will appreciate honesty about conflicts of interest, even if they then have to look for a replacement reviewer

Timing for review:

MARKS Medical Journal (MMJ) is committed to rapid editorial decisions and publications. To achieve the goal, an efficient editorial process is a valuable service both to our authors and to the scientific community as a whole. Therefore, we request that the reviewers respond promptly within 3 days to agree to the review process. If a reviewer does not agree or respond to reviewing a manuscript, then we request another reviewer. Once a reviewer agrees to review, the maximum allocated time period for review is (2 -4) weeks. A soft reminder email will be sent to the reviewer when the allocated time is over.

Stepwise Peer Review Process of MARKS Medical Journal :

Step 1

• Submission of Manuscript : by login as an Author or through official mail of MARKS Medical Journal  ( journal.marks@gmail.com ) or  via  MMJ official website  https://www.marksmedicalcollege.edu.bd

Step 2

• Initial Editorial Review: 5-7 Days (If sent for revision/initial correction , it should be submitted again as the time given as per instructions MMJ)
• – Upon submission, the editorial board conducts an initial assessment of all received manuscripts to determine their suitabilityas per MARKS Medical Journal Instructions for formal review and then sent to  selective  reviewers
• – Those manuscripts that are not prepared as per the author guidelines are resent for technical modification prior to the review process.

Step 3

Peer review:

• Manuscripts that pass the initial review are forwarded to both internal and external peer reviewers for evaluation ; and this is a blinded process.Reviewers are requested to return comments to editor within (2-4) weeks/ (6-8) weeks.

Step 4

• Internal Peer Review: (2-4) weeks (If sent for Revised should be submitted again as the time given as per instructions MMJ)
• The Executive Editor, based on the manuscript’s subject matter, refers it to a relevant Editorial team member.
• The designated Editorial team members with expertise in the field either review the manuscript themselves or propose external reviewers to the Editorial Office.
• If necessary, a comprehensive literature search is conducted to identify suitable external experts.

Step 5

• External Peer Review: (2-4) weeks (If sent for Revised should be submitted again as the time given as per instructions MMJ)
• External experts undertake the review of the manuscript.The external reviewers provide their recommendations.

Step 6

• Decision : The recommendations, along with a review from the assigned Editorial board member, are relayed to the Chief Editor
• Then on the basis of reviewers’ comments the editorial board renders a decision on the manuscript, with four possible outcomes: acceptance, minor revisions, major revisions, or rejection.

Publication on acceptance shall depend on the manuscript’s date of acceptance and category (original research, review, case reports, etc.)

Any query to the editor shall be responded to by email in 5 -7 working days.

It is important to note that editorial team members who are authors of a submitted manuscript are not involved in the publication decision-making process. Their exclusion ensures impartiality and fairness in the review and selection of manuscripts for publication.