Peer Review Policy or Peer Review Statement

Home
Peer Review Policy

Peer Review Policy

Double-Blind • Transparent

Peer Review Policy

The practice of peer review exists to ensure that only good science is published. It is an objective process at the heart of good scholarly publishing, carried out at JMVRA following the procedure outlined below.

Expert Referees

1–2

Days to Decision

11.25

Impact Factor

Page reviewed 17 Oct 2026 · facts read from the journal record

Initial Manuscript Evaluation

The Editor first evaluates all manuscripts. It is rare, but it is possible for an exceptional manuscript to be accepted at this stage. Manuscripts rejected at this stage are insufficiently original, have serious scientific flaws, have poor grammar or English language, or are outside the aims and scope of the journal. Those that meet the minimum criteria are normally passed on to at least 2 experts for review.

Type of Peer Review

JMVRA employs double blind reviewing, where both the referee and author remain anonymous throughout the process.

How the referee is selected: Whenever possible, referees are matched to the paper according to their expertise and our database is constantly being updated.

Referee Reports

Referees are asked to evaluate whether the manuscript: - Is original - Is methodologically sound - Follows appropriate ethical guidelines - Has results which are clearly presented and support the conclusions - Correctly references previous relevant work. Language correction is not part of the peer review process, but referees may, if so wish, suggest corrections to the manuscript.

How Long Does the Review Process Take?

The time required for the review process is dependent on the response of the referees. Should the referee’s reports contradict one another or a report is unnecessarily delayed, a further expert opinion will be sought. In rare cases for which it is extremely difficult to find a second referee to review the manuscript, or when the one referee’s report has thoroughly convinced the Editor, decisions at this stage to accept, reject or ask the author for a revision are made on the basis of only one referee’s report. The Editor’s decision will be sent to the author with recommendations made by the referees, which usually includes verbatim comments by the referees. Revised manuscripts might be returned to the initial referees who may then request another revision of a manuscript.

Final Report & Editor's Decision

A final decision to accept or reject the manuscript will be sent to the author along with any recommendations made by the referees, and may include verbatim comments by the referees.

Editor’s Decision is final: Referees advise the editor, who is responsible for the final decision to accept or reject the article.

Becoming a Referee for JMVRA

If you are not currently a referee for JMVRA but would like to be considered as a referee, please contact the editor. The benefits of refereeing for JMVRA include the opportunity to read, see and evaluate the latest work in your research area at an early stage, and to contribute to the overall integrity of scientific research and its published documentation. You may also be able to cite your work for JMVRA as part of your professional development requirements for various Professional Societies and Organisations.

Interested in becoming a referee? Join as a Reviewer or email us at [email protected].

Different Types of Peer Review

There are different forms of peer review used by journals, although the basis is always the same, field experts providing comments on a paper to help improve it. The most common types are:

Closed

Reviewers are aware of the authors’ identities, but the authors do not know who reviewed their manuscript.

Double Blind

Neither authors nor reviewers know each other’s identities — the model used by JMVRA.

Open

Reviewers are aware of the authors’ identity, and the reviewers’ identity is revealed to the authors. Some journals also publish the reviewers’ reports alongside the final manuscript.

Common Reasons for Rejection

Your manuscript can be rejected for many reasons but these can generally be divided into technical and editorial reasons.

Technical reasons usually require more work such as further experiments or analysis before your work can be published.

Technical reasons for rejection include:

Incomplete Data

Too small a sample size, or missing or poor controls.

Poor Analysis

Inappropriate statistical tests, or a lack of statistics altogether.

Inappropriate Methodology

Old methodology surpassed by newer, more powerful methods that provide more robust results.

Weak Research Motive

Hypothesis is not clear or scientifically valid, or your data does not answer the question posed.

Inaccurate Conclusions

Conclusions based on assumptions that are not supported by your data.

These rejection reasons can be avoided by investing enough time in reading around the subject area, carefully deciding on the topic to focus on, the hypothesis and planning a comprehensive experiment as outlined in the Springer Nature Journal Author Academy: Writing a Journal Manuscript.

Editorial reasons for rejection include:

Out of Scope

Not within the aims and scope of the journal.

Insufficient Advance

Not enough of an advance or of enough impact for the journal.

Research Ethics Ignored

Missing consent from patients, or approval from an ethics committee for animal research.

Improper Structure

Lack of proper structure, or not following journal formatting requirements.

Lacking Detail

Not enough detail for readers to fully understand and repeat the authors’ analysis and experiments.

Outdated References

Lack of up-to-date references, or references containing a high proportion of self-citations.

Poor Language Quality

Language quality such that it cannot be understood by readers.

Difficult to Follow

Difficult to follow logic, or poorly presented data.

Ethics Violation

Violation of publication ethics.

The process

The review, stage by stage

Five stages between upload and decision.

Editor screeningScope, originality, language and obvious flaws are checked first; a paper can be returned at this point.
At least two refereesMatched to the paper by expertise under double-blind review: neither side knows the other.
Referee reportsOriginality, method, ethics, results and references are scored; a third opinion is sought if reports conflict.
Editor decidesAccept, revise or reject — the editor’s decision is final and goes to the author with the referees’ comments.
You are toldThe decision arrives by email and SMS; revised papers may return to the same referees.

Decision criteria

What referees are asked to judge

The five questions on every referee report.

Criterion 1OriginalNew work, not a repeat of what is already published.

Criterion 2Methodologically soundDesign, sample and analysis that can support the claims.

Criterion 3Ethically reportedApprovals, consent and conflicts stated where they apply.

Criterion 4Clear resultsFindings presented plainly and supporting the conclusions.

Criterion 5Properly referencedRelevant earlier work cited correctly; language correction is not part of review.

Related policies

Policies that sit beside peer review

Transparent peer reviewOpen reports, optional identity disclosure, certificate.Reviewer policyWho can review, what is expected, how to join.Conflict of interestWhen a referee or editor must step aside.Complaints & appealsHow to appeal a decision with new evidence.Publication ethicsConfidentiality and fairness duties of referees.Plagiarism policyThe similarity screen that runs before review.

Quick contact

Waiting on a decision?

Email with the paper ID rather than resubmitting; duplicate submissions slow every paper in the queue.

Email the editor[email protected]WhatsApp+919106365667 Track your paperRegistration ID + key or email Join as a reviewerReviewer / editor application

Where the Peer Review Policy Applies

The stages of a paper’s journey this policy governs are highlighted.

Applies at: Submit · Review · Accept

Peer Review Policy in Brief

Every paper in JMVRA is peer reviewed. After editorial screening for scope, format and similarity, the paper goes to subject reviewers under a double-blind model: reviewers do not see the authors’ identities and authors do not see the reviewers’.

Reviewers assess originality, method, results and clarity, and the editor makes the decision. Your paper is evaluated by expert reviewers, and acceptance or rejection notifications are sent via email and SMS, with reviewer comments.