International Journal of Head and Neck Pathology

Home Aim & Scope Editorial Board Archives Articles Author instructions Online Submission Contact Us

Peer Review Policy

The International Journal of Head and Neck Pathology uses a single anonymous peer review process, with at the very least unbiased, blinded, and qualified reviewers whose identities are kept hidden from the author.

Prior to the editorial evaluation, which will decide whether or not they are suitable for peer review, all submissions to our journals are checked for completeness. Another member of the editorial board will be tasked with managing peer review in cases where an editor is listed as an author or has any other competing interests with respect to a particular article.

Editors are not obligated by the findings or suggestions in the peer-reviewed report, but they will take them into account when reaching a decision.If an issue is brought up by just one peer reviewer or the editor, the manuscript will be rejected. Peer review findings and the editorial verdict are sent to authors alongside their manuscripts.

International Journal of Head and Neck Pathology- the peer review process

1. Initial processing by Editorial Assistant

Before your paper is forwarded for peer review, the Editorial Assistant will carry out quality checks on the submitted manuscript. At that time, you will be asked for more information.

2. Editor assignment

After the Editorial Assistant has completed preliminary quality checks on the chosen manuscript, an appropriate Associate Editor will be assigned to it. This Associate Editor will assess the paper's scope, quality, and suitability for the journal. The manuscript will be rejected if it doesn't fit these requirements.

3. Awaiting Reviewer Selection

The Editorial Team will find an external expert reviewer who would be available to assess the chosen article once it has been determined that it fulfils the Journal's scope and has been authorised for peer review. The paper will then be delivered to the appropriate Associate Editors for internal review. The majority of articles require a minimum of two reviews. Before the necessary number is attained, articles may be distributed to several qualified reviewers.

4. Peer review in progress

Usually, peer reviewers have two weeks to submit their analysis on the article. The Editorial Team will restart the reviewer selection process or reassign a reviewer for the specific article if the reviewer decides to leave the process in any way.

5. Editorial decision in progress

The Editor will consider the expert reviewers' viewpoints to arrive at the decision of accept, reject, or amend when the article has obtained the minimal number of reviews necessary to make a decision.

6. Re-review

The article will move through another cycle of revision, re- review and further will be sent to the editor with comments. The process will follow through with author correction and submission, acceptance.

7. In production

The article will move through the final quality checks and into Production where it will be processed for publication. The Production Editor will email you with a timeline and a link to a platform called In Production where you can keep track of your article's progress. Once the article has been accepted, the corresponding author will receive a confirmation email.

TIME PERIOD

Although it is the intention to complete the peer review process as quickly as possible, please keep in mind that reviewers volunteer their time, so there may be times when several reviewers must be invited before the necessary number can be arranged or when a reviewer fails to deliver a review and the process must restart. An initial decision often takes a week to come to a conclusion.

MM Publishers is dedicated to transparency. Every piece we post includes information about its provenance (whether it was commissioned or not) and if it was peer reviewed internally or externally. One or more of the journal's editors will evaluate articles that are listed as "internally peer reviewed."