Editor and Reviewer guidelines
The essential points of an associate audit are to choose whether or not an article ought to be distributed (in light of value and pertinence to the diary) and to enhance the article before production. All entries initially experience an inside companion survey process: a doled out editorial manager settles on an underlying choice to acknowledge or to dismiss the original copy (e.g. point is outside the extent of the Journal, vital imperfections in logical legitimacy, and so on). On the off chance that the editorial manager trusts the article might be of intrigue, it is conveyed for the outer associate survey. The analysts are chosen by subject matter (commentators who concede amazing surveys inside the asked for time are favored). When audits are gotten, the manager makes a judgment considering the studies and suggestions from commentators, and different factors, for example, importance to the Journal's points and handiness to clinicians or analysts.
JORAM aims to publish at least 12 Research Articles and 6 Case Reports and 2 Reviews in a calendar year. The number of review articles may change according to the content of the journal.
Peer Review Process
Blind review is a method used to make sure scientific publications are produced with the highest quality. This method is fundamental to the objective review of scientific studies and is preferred by many scientific journals. Reviewer views are determinant in the publication quality of JORAM. All manuscripts submitted to JORAM are blind reviewed according to the steps below:
Blind Review Method
JORAM uses the double-blind review method in the review process of all studies. In this method the identities of the authors and reviewers are confidential.
Initial Review Process
The studies submitted to JORAM are reviewed by the editors first. At this stage, the studies which are not related to the journal's aim and scope, weak in terms of language and wording, lack originality, contain critical scientific mistakes, and do not meet the publishing criteria are rejected. The authors of such studies are informed in a month following the submission date. The studies deemed acceptable, on the other hand, are submitted to a field editor related to the subject of study that the work focuses on.
In the pre-review process, the field editors evaluate the introduction and literature, method, findings, results, discussion parts of the studies in detail with respect to the publishing policies and scope of the journal as well as originality. As a result of this process, those studies that are found unacceptable are returned within four weeks the latest together with the field editor report. And the studies which are deemed appropriate are assigned to reviewers.
Peer Reviewer Selection
Reviewers are chosen by their experience and involvement in some part of the subject. The most alluring analysts distinguish the qualities and shortcomings of the submitted paper and investigate it from various perspectives. The companion commentators are made a request to peruse and break down the allotted composition and give a composed sentiment of its quality, curiosity, importance, and appropriateness for distribution in JORAM. Associate analysts likewise make recommendations to help the writers in enhancing the article. Analysts must dissect and remark on the paper, as well as give feelings about general concerns, for example, clearness and nature of the written work, legitimacy of the logical approach, and whether the article gives new data.
Moral Guidelines for Journal Peer Reviewers
At the point when a chose individual acknowledges an associate inspecting task, the analyst verifiably consents to the moral guidelines that are normally acknowledged in biomedical distributing. Moral rules for commentators, creators, and editors are accounted for by the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors in the 'Uniform Requirements for Manuscripts Submitted to Biomedical Journals' accessible from www.icmje.org.
Reviewers for JORAM must consent to:
Deliver as watchful and goal an audit as conceivable Respect the manager's due date. Consider with receptive outlook developments or methodologies unique in relation to those of one's own.
Give an adjusted investigate focused on not exclusively to distinguish the qualities and shortcomings of the paper, yet in addition to giving valuable input to the creators to enhance their original copy, without being excessively reproachful of minor focuses.
Evade logical unfortunate behavior, for example, the misappropriation of protected innovation.
Every composition ought to be dealt with as a to a great degree private report.
The security of the creators' thoughts should dependably be ensured.
Coordinate remarks about moral concerns privately to the editors.
Reaching a creator with inquiries concerning the composition isn't permitted.
All scrutinizes, including the last mentioned, must be accounted for in the composed study.
Announce any irreconcilable circumstance (genuine or saw) recognized to the supervisor before the finish of the survey. Only one out of every odd potential clash requires a dismissal.
Analysts are urged to talk about potential clashes with the editors on the off chance that they trust they can give a reasonable survey.
Reject a task if the accompanying clashes are available: Financial interests (e.g. paid consultancies, stock property), critical expert or individual connections or competitions, animosity toward pondering question/approach, political or extraordinary intrigue affiliations (e.g. religious or profound feelings that contention with the original copy theme).
Potential commentators are reached by email, which contains the original copy title, dynamic, and task due date. The chose commentator acknowledges or decreases the task inside 7 days. The inability to answer inside the recommended time will be dealt with as an understood dismissal. It is satisfactory to propose a broadened due date when the given due date (as a rule a month from the assignment acknowledgment date) can't be met. The chose commentators typically have broad experience as employees, analysts, and distributed creators. Here and there commentators from other particular territories are chosen. This choice is constantly well thoroughly considered, and we urge such potential analysts to consider the task on the off chance that they can make a commitment to some part of the work. The accompanying focuses must be given by the commentators in the composed reaction:
To be accepted and publish an article, it should fulfill the criteria given below:
It does not involve any ethical violation,
It has a clear message to be conveyed to the scientific community,
It is written in an intelligible fashion,
It possesses structural and logical integrity:
- The manuscript has a straight and clear storyline,
- Reasons for doing the study are explained in the Introduction section,
- Experiments, statistics, and other analyses are carried out adequately, and described in sufficient detail,
- Conclusion of the article is drawn directly from the findings of the study,
- Conclusion section answers the research question (aim) addressed in the Introduction section,
- Sections of the manuscript, including the abstract, do not contradict each other. The manuscript has internal consistency.
Sorted out Critique
Appraisal of Strengths and Weaknesses: the accompanying ought to be assessed: Literature audit is a la mode; Methods line up with thinking about reason or research questions; Methods depicted inadequate and fitting point of interest; Research outline or study approach is satisfactory; Approach to information investigation is proper; Thoughtful thought given to the examination constraints; Manuscript gives new data that is probably going to bear some significance with our perusers.
Generally Overlooked Areas: Reviewers ought to deliberately note: title, dynamic, tables and figures, references.
After the companion survey process has finished and a sufficient number of audits has been gotten, the relegated proofreader settles on an official conclusion about the original copy (acknowledge, welcome a correction, or reject) in view of thought of all the analyst remarks, general scrutinize, and other outside variables (e.g. the article is reliable with the Journal reason, comparative articles as of late distributed, number of acknowledged articles anticipating production, the potential effect of the article, and so forth.). Editors may counsel with each other when settling on the choice. A choice condensing the suppositions of editors and analysts will be sent to the relating creator.