Each manuscript submitted to the Journal of Integrated Maternal and Pediatric Care (JIMPC) is initially evaluated by the editorial team for quality, originality, significance, and alignment with the journal's aims and scope. Manuscripts that pass this initial screening proceed to a double‑blind peer review process, in which the identities of both authors and reviewers are concealed from one another.
Each manuscript is reviewed by at least two independent external reviewers with expertise in the relevant subject area. In the event of significantly divergent recommendations, the manuscript may be sent to a third reviewer.
Please note that:
Manuscripts that do not fall within the journal's scope will be rejected at the editorial screening stage.
Reviewers are selected based on their scientific competence in the subject area and their proficiency in scholarly evaluation.
Reviewers must provide objective, constructive, and timely feedback.
Reviewers must not use confidential information obtained through peer review for personal advantage.
All editorial decisions are based solely on scholarly merit and relevance.
Authors may suggest potential reviewers or request the exclusion of specific reviewers by providing names and reasons in their cover letter.
The final decision on all manuscripts is made by the Editor‑in‑Chief or, for delegated submissions, by the Associate Editor‑in‑Chief. The journal is committed to rendering decisions as promptly as possible.
Guide for Reviewers
All reviewers are expected to adhere to the ethical principles outlined in COPE's Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers. These principles include, but are not limited to:
Confidentiality: Reviewers must treat the manuscript and all related materials as confidential documents and must not share them with others or discuss them with anyone outside the editorial team.
Declaration of Conflicts of Interest: Reviewers must declare any potential conflicts of interest (financial, institutional, collaborative, or personal) that could bias their review and recuse themselves if such conflicts exist.
Objectivity and Constructiveness: Reviews must be based on scientific merit, be objective, and provide constructive feedback to help authors improve their work.
Appropriate Use of AI: Reviewers must not upload the manuscript or any part of it into an unsecured AI tool for analysis, as this may violate confidentiality. Any use of AI tools in the review process must be transparently disclosed to the editor.
The Journal encourages reviewers to engage in ongoing professional development and provides access to free training resources, including COPE's guidance and webinars. A detailed Guide for Reviewers is available on the journal website.
Appeals Policy
Authors have the right to appeal an editorial decision if they believe it was made in error or without proper consideration. The journal provides a transparent and structured process for submitting appeals while maintaining editorial independence and scientific integrity.
Grounds for Appeal: An appeal may be submitted when authors believe that the editorial or peer‑review decision was based on a misunderstanding or misinterpretation of the manuscript; important evidence or data was overlooked; reviewer comments contained factual errors; or there was a breach of fairness, bias, or procedural irregularity. Appeals based solely on disagreement with editorial judgment will not be considered.
How to Submit an Appeal:
Prepare a formal appeal letter addressed to the Editor‑in‑Chief, including the manuscript title and reference number, a clear explanation of the reason for the appeal, specific responses to reviewer or editor comments, and any supporting evidence.
Submit the appeal via the journal's email or submission system within 30 days of the decision. Late appeals may not be accepted.
The Editor‑in‑Chief will review the appeal and may re‑evaluate the manuscript, consult additional reviewers, or seek an independent assessment from a senior editor.
The decision on appeal is final and will be communicated to the authors in writing. Submission of an appeal does not guarantee reversal of the original decision. Appeals must be respectful, factual, and focused on scientific reasoning. During the appeal process, the manuscript must not be submitted to another journal.
During Peer Review
Editors and reviewers may request access to underlying data to evaluate the validity of the research. Any data provided during review will be treated confidentially and used exclusively for assessment purposes.
Revision
The manuscript may be returned to the corresponding author for language or scientific content revision.
Authors should highlight all changes in the revised manuscript (do not use Track Changes; use highlighting).
A separate point‑by‑point response to reviewers' comments must accompany the revised manuscript.
If the revised manuscript is not returned within the stipulated deadline, it may be treated as a new submission.
Authors wishing to resubmit a previously rejected manuscript must include the original manuscript and a letter detailing the changes made.
Proofs
Before publication, the corresponding author will receive a PDF proof of the article for final review. Only typographical errors and minor corrections are permitted at this stage. Major changes (including new results, changes to the author list or affiliations, or substantial rewriting) are not allowed. The corrected proof must be returned within 48 hours.