Peer Review Process

The Journal of Disease Mechanisms and Genomics (JDMG) is committed to maintaining a fair and transparent peer-review system to ensure the publication of scholarly work. All submitted manuscripts undergo editorial and peer evaluation in accordance with internationally recognised standards of academic publishing and research integrity.

Initial Editorial Assessment

Upon submission, manuscripts are subjected to an initial editorial screening conducted by the Editor-in-Chief or an assigned Associate Editor. During this stage, submissions are evaluated for:

Relevance to the scope and aims of the journal
Scientific originality and significance
Methodological and analytical quality
Compliance with journal formatting and submission requirements
Ethical approval and research integrity considerations
Language clarity and overall scholarly presentation

Manuscripts that do not meet the journal’s basic scientific or editorial standards may be declined prior to external review.

Peer Review Model

JDMG employs a double-blind peer-review process, in which the identities of both authors and reviewers remain confidential throughout the review process. This approach is intended to promote objective and unbiased scientific evaluation. Each manuscript is typically assessed by at least two independent reviewers possessing relevant subject expertise. Additional reviewers may be consulted where necessary to ensure a comprehensive scientific assessment.

Reviewer Evaluation Criteria

Reviewers are requested to evaluate manuscripts on the basis of:

Scientific novelty and contribution to the field
Experimental design and methodological rigour
Validity and reproducibility of data
Statistical and analytical appropriateness
Interpretation of findings and scholarly discussion
Clarity, organisation, and presentation of the manuscript
Ethical compliance and data transparency

Reviewers may recommend acceptance, minor revision, major revision, or rejection.

Editorial Decision-Making

Final editorial decisions are made by the Editor-in-Chief or handling Associate Editor after careful consideration of reviewer comments, scientific merit, and editorial judgement. Authors may be requested to revise their manuscripts in response to reviewer recommendations before a final decision is reached.

The journal reserves the right to reject submissions that fail to adequately address scientific, methodological, ethical, or editorial concerns.

Confidentiality and Integrity

All manuscripts submitted to JDMG are treated as confidential documents. Reviewers and editors are expected to maintain strict confidentiality regarding manuscript content, data, and communications throughout the review process. The journal is committed to safeguarding the integrity of scholarly publishing and does not tolerate plagiarism, data fabrication, image manipulation, duplicate publication, or unethical research practices. Submitted manuscripts may undergo plagiarism screening and editorial integrity assessment prior to or during peer review.

Review Timeline

JDMG strives to ensure a timely and efficient review process while maintaining high editorial standards. The approximate review workflow is as follows:

Initial editorial screening: 5–10 working days
External peer review: 2–4 weeks
Final editorial decision following review: dependent on revision requirements and reviewer recommendations. Review durations may vary depending on manuscript complexity, reviewer availability, and the extent of revisions required.

Appeals and Revisions

Authors may submit revised manuscripts addressing reviewer and editorial comments in a clear and scientifically justified manner. In cases of dispute, authors may contact the editorial office regarding appeals or clarification of editorial decisions. All appeals are evaluated objectively and independently by the editorial team.