Peer Review Policy

Journal of Shalamar Medical and Dental College (JSHMDC) is a peer-reviewed journal that follows a double-blind peer review policy. 

Manuscripts submitted to JSHMDC should be reviewed according to the journal guidelines and peer review policy.

1.     Initial Assessment / Screening of the Manuscript

Upon submission, the manuscript is acknowledged immediately, and the editorial office conducts an initial screening to assess suitability according to journal guidelines, originality, scope, and similarity index. If found satisfactory, the manuscript proceeds to external peer review.

2.     Type of Peer Review

JSHMDC follows a Double-Anonymous Peer Review policy for all article types published in the journal, including original research articles, case reports, case series, review articles, editorials, and letters to the editor. Author names and affiliations are removed prior to review, and reviewer identities are not disclosed to authors.

3.      Selection of Reviewers

To ensure high-quality evaluation, JSHMDC selects reviewers based on demonstrated expertise in the manuscript's subject area — evidenced by academic credentials, professional background, and a relevant publication record. The journal prefers reviewers who are actively engaged in current research or clinical practice related to the topic. No reviewer may be assigned to a manuscript if a conflict of interest exists with the authors, their affiliated institutions, or funding sources. The journal continually updates its reviewer database to reflect a broad range of expertise and ensure impartiality in the review process."

4.     Reviewer Assignment

After initial screening, the manuscript is sent to two external reviewers who are independent of the journal's editorial staff and not affiliated with the journal's publishing institution. Authors may suggest 3 potential reviewers with their affiliation and contact details in a cover letter; inclusion is at the editor’s discretion, and JSHMDC’s own reviewer database is preferred. Reviewers are given three weeks to complete their review. If the review is not received within this period, a reminder is sent; if there is no response within one week of the reminder, the manuscript is sent to a third reviewer. Each reviewer evaluates no more than two manuscripts per issue of this bi-annual journal. Reviewers must read the journal guidelines and peer review policy before starting the assigned manuscript review. Reviewers should complete the review process within the given 3-week period and respond to any reminders if sent.

 

4. Confidentiality

Confidentiality of the manuscripts under review should be maintained. Reviewers must not share, discuss, or use the content of a manuscript under review for personal advantage and must delete or securely dispose of copies after completing the review report and submitting it to the Journal office. Reviewers must maintain the manuscript's confidentiality, which prohibits uploading it to AI tools where confidentiality cannot be assured.

 

5.     Reviewer Responsibilities

      Reviewers must:

§  critically evaluate the manuscript for originality, quality, accuracy, readability, and readers’ interest and provide recommendations to the editor regarding the suitability of a manuscript for publication

§  Confirm the study’s title and objectives are aligned with its conclusion

§  Confirm the rationale of the study is clearly stated

§  Confirm the study design, duration, setting, sampling technique, inclusion/exclusion criteria, methodology, and statistical analysis are adequately described

§  Confirm ethical approval reference number, consent from participants, and place of conduct of study mentioned

§  Confirm results are appropriately supported by tables and figures

§  Confirm Possible confounding factors addressed or not

§  Assess whether new findings are discussed and compared with existing literature

§  Confirm strength of the conclusions, limitations, and future recommendations are mentioned

§  Confirm conflict of interest, sources of funding, and acknowledgments (if any) are declared

Reviewers are required to assess the manuscript using the reviewer’s proforma (Click here to download the Review Form ) provided with the submission. Reviewers may provide a detailed narrative review, addressing all relevant aspects of the manuscript, without using the proforma.

Reviewers should complete the review and submit the duly signed review report (reviewer’s proforma or narrative review), along with the manuscript if any comments are added directly to it.

Reviewer comments to the authors must be professional and constructive in tone. Derogatory or disparaging remarks about the manuscript are not permitted. Where such comments occur, the editor reserves the right to edit them or to withhold the reviewer's comments from informing the authors altogether

Reviewers must declare any conflict of interest to the editor before accepting a review assignment; where a conflict exists, the reviewer is excluded, and another reviewer is assigned in their place. Reviewers are expected to complete their review within the specified period (three weeks, as above) and must submit a completed review form duly signed, and if comments are added directly to the manuscript, submit that file also.

6. Editorial Decision

Reviewer comments are advisory. The Editor-in-Chief/editorial board retains final authority over acceptance, revision, or rejection decisions, taking reviewer recommendations into account alongside the journal’s scope and editorial standards.

7. Revision Process

Reviewer comments are communicated to the author, who is given two weeks to submit a revised manuscript. A first reminder is issued in the 3rd week and a second in the 4th week if no response is received; the manuscript is declined if no response is received after both reminders. Revised manuscripts are checked to confirm the requested changes have been incorporated. Where major revisions remain outstanding, the manuscript undergoes a second round of review following the same timelines. The full review process, from submission to final decision, takes approximately 18 weeks; it may vary depending on the authors’ response and the extent of revisions required based on the quality of the submitted manuscript.

Reviewers should complete the review within a specified period. If delayed, reviewers must inform the corresponding editor about the time required to complete the review.

 

Upon approval, a formal letter of acceptance is issued to the corresponding author, and the date of acceptance is recorded and written in the published manuscript alongside the submission date.

8. No Guarantee of Acceptance or Expedited Review

Submission of a manuscript does not guarantee acceptance for publication, and JSHMDC does not offer expedited or guaranteed review timelines outside the process described above.

9. Reviewer Anonymity and Disclosure

In keeping with the double-blind peer review policy, reviewer identities are not disclosed publicly. Reviewer details may, however, be disclosed on request to recognized national and international indexing and accreditation bodies (e.g., Higher Education Commission (HEC) Pakistan, Pakistan Medical & Dental Council (PMDC), and DOAJ for verification purposes.

 Reviewers should fill out the review form. Click here to download the Review Form. Even if comments are inserted directly in the manuscript, the Review Form has to be submitted after completing the review.