Peer Review Process

Manuscripts submitted to SLOAP go through an internal review and if they meet the basic requirements, they are sent out for double-blind review from experts in the field, either from the editorial board or identified reviewers. Comments from the external reviewers are sent to the authors and they are notified of the journal’s decision (accept, accept with revisions, reject). This entire review process will take anywhere between 2-3 months after submission of the manuscript. The editor’s decision is final.

SLOAP follows a double-blind peer-review process, whereby authors do not know reviewers and vice versa. Peer review is fundamental to the scientific publication process and the dissemination of sound science.

SLOAP journals aspire to select and publish, through double-blind peer-review, the highest quality research globally. In order to achieve this goal, the entire peer-review process should be thorough, objective and fair. Journal reputation depends heavily on the fairness of the peer-review process.

Peer reviewers are experts chosen by journal editors to provide the written assessment of the strengths and weaknesses of written research, with the aim of improving the reporting of research and identifying the most appropriate and highest quality material for the journal.

Review Quality

SLOAP considers its reviewers as experts in the scientific topics addressed in the articles they review. They provide the written assessment of the strengths and weaknesses of written research with the aims to improve the reporting of research and identifying the most appropriate and highest quality material for the journal. Individuals who do not have such expertise cannot be reviewers.

Ratings of review quality and other performance characteristics are periodically assessed by the Chief Executive Editor to assure optimal journal performance. These ratings also contribute to decisions on reappointment to the SLOAP Editorial Board and to ongoing review requests. Individual performance data on Reviewers are available to the Editors but otherwise kept confidential.

Reviews are expected to be professional, honest, courteous, prompt, and constructive.

What is expected of reviewers?

Reviewers are welcome to recommend a particular course of action, but they should bear in mind that the other reviewers of a particular paper may have different technical expertise and/or views, and the Journal's editors may have to make a decision based on conflicting advice. The most useful reports, therefore, provide the editors with the information on which decision should be based. Setting out the arguments for and against publication is often more helpful to the editors than a direct recommendation one way or the other.

The submitted manuscript is a privileged communication; reviewers must treat it as confidential. It should not be retained or copied. Also, reviewers must not share the manuscript with any colleagues without the explicit permission of the Chief Executive Editor.

Publication Ethics

Plagiarism is scientific misconduct and is an unacceptable violation of publication ethics. It should be dealt with promptly.

The journal's editors and reviewers are the primary means of detecting plagiarism in manuscripts submitted to SLOAP journals. If reviewers suspect misconduct, they should notify the Chief Executive Editor in confidence, and should not share their concerns with other parties unless officially notified by the journal that they may do so.

Timeliness

Reviewers should be prompt with their reviews. If a reviewer cannot meet the deadline given, he/she should contact the Chief Executive Editor as soon as possible to determine whether a longer time period or a new reviewer should be chosen. Typically, the time to complete the first review is three (3) weeks.

Peer-Review Process

Three referees independently evaluate the scientific quality of the submitted manuscripts. Authors are encouraged to indicate in the Author Guidelines the names of three potential reviewers, but the editors will make the final choice. The editors are not, however, bound by these suggestions. Manuscripts should be written so that they are intelligible to the professional reader who is not a specialist in the particular field. They should be written in a clear, concise, and direct style. Where contributions are judged as acceptable for publication on the basis of content, the Editor reserves the right to modify the typescripts to eliminate ambiguity and repetition and improve communication between author and reader. If extensive alterations are required, the manuscript will be returned to the author for revision.

1. Manuscript Processing
Upon initial submission of the manuscript, the author will be acknowledged of the receipt via e-mail. Initially an article will be reviewed by one member of the Editorial team to judge the quality of the paper. Articles written in poor English language or not conforming to IJHMS guidelines will either be rejected or returned to the authors to rectify the shortcomings. Manuscripts deemed proper should be forwarded to at least two subject experts to provide their unbiased input. Acceptable manuscripts will be checked for data analysis and verification of references before the author will be notified about the status of the paper with any suggestions for modifications. Finally accepted articles should be forwarded to the printer for typeset and formatting, etc. and the proof will send to the authors for proof reading, before publication.

2. Peer Review Policy
Unbiased, independent, critical assessment is an intrinsic part of all scholarly work, including the scientific process. Peer review is the critical assessment of manuscripts submitted to journals by experts who are not part of the editorial staff, and is, therefore, an important extension of the scientific process. Each article submitted to IJHMS for publication is reviewed by at least two senior specialists of the concerned specialty. The Double Blind Peer Review process is strictly followed and, in certain controversial cases, the opinion of a 3rd reviewer can also be sought.

3. Conflict of Interest
Conflict of interest exists when as author (or the author's institution), reviewer, or editor has financial or personal relationships that inappropriately influence (bias) his or her actions (such relationship are also known as dual commitments, competing interests, or competing loyalties). However, conflicts can also occur for other reasons, such as personal relationships, academic competition, and intellectual passion. Increasingly, individual studies receive funding from commercial firms, private foundations, and the government. The conditions of this funding have the potential to bias and otherwise discredit the research. When authors submit a manuscript, they are required to disclose all financial and personal relationships that might bias their work. To prevent ambiguity, authors must state explicitly whether potential conflicts do or do not exist.

It is the discretion of editorial committee of IJHMS to resolve any conflict of interest between the author(s) and reviewers. Editors may choose not to consider an article for publication if they feel that the research is biased by the sponsors funding the research project.

4. Plagiarism
Plagiarism is the unauthorized use or close imitation of the language and thoughts of another author and representing them as ones own original work. Within the academia, it is considered dishonesty or fraud and offenders are subject to academic censure. Plagiarism can be unintentional or intentional, reproducing academic material without appropriate credit to the original authors. Similarly self-plagiarism is the re-use of significant, identical or near identical portions of ones own work without citing the original work. This is also known as Recycling Fraud. Worst form of plagiarism is to steal the whole article from some journal and publish it under ones own name in another journal. The Editorial Committee of IJHMS will blacklist any author found to be guilty of plagiarism. The name of author(s) committing plagiarism will also be disseminated to editors of other medical journals.

5. Ethical Issues
Human clinical trials and studies conducted in animals (or not) must have been approved by an Institutional Review Board (IRB). In the absence of such a formal ethics review committee, the Helsinki Declaration of 1975, as revised in 2000 and/or the Guide for the Care and Use of Laboratory Animals, as adopted and promulgated by the United States National Institutes of Health, must be followed. If doubt exists whether the research was conducted in accordance with the Helsinki Declaration, the authors must explain the rationale for their approach, and demonstrate that the institutional review body explicitly approved the doubtful aspects of the study. In case of any study involving clinical trial, taking of informed consent of patients is mandatory. Whenever editorial committee of IJHMS feels necessary, the research paper will be referred to the Research Ethic Committee of SLOAP for its evaluation and approval.

6. Editorial Committee
The Editorial committee consisting of the Editor- in-Chief, Associate Editor, Editors, Assistant Editor(s) and the editorial secretaries meet at least twice a month to expedite the business of the journal. The editorial committee follows the guidelines provided by the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors in Uniform Requirements for Manuscripts Submitted to Biomedical Journals: Writing and Editing for Biomedical Publication which can be downloaded from http://www.icmje.org/

7. Advisory Board
An advisory board comprising of members with significant professional experience in different fields of medical sciences helps the Editorial Committee in policy matters when needed. Senior specialists from Saudi Arabia, as well as professionals from foreign countries are members of the Board.

What happens to a manuscript once it is submitted to SLOAP?

SLOAP is a double-blind peer-reviewed journal. All submitted manuscripts are initially previewed by the Editorial Board, who reserves the right to accept or reject the manuscript.

If the Editorial Board concludes that the manuscript is within the scope of the journal and meets the standards and requirements for publication, the Editor proceeds to send the manuscript to two peer reviewers recommended by the Editorial Board. Reviewers are chosen based on their eminence and competence in the research area to which the submitted manuscripts are related.

Reviewers are selected from the highest university teaching and research titles. The choice of reviewers is at the discretion of the Editor and the Editorial Board. The Journal list of reviewers is updated and expanded with new reviewers annually.

Reviewers must not have a conflict of interest with respect to the authors. If such conflicts exist, the reviewers must report them to the Editor without delay.  The reviewer that feels unqualified to review the research reported in the particular manuscript or knows that its prompt review will be impossible should notify the Editor.

Reviewers are obliged to send the review to the Editorial Board within three weeks upon receipt of the manuscript. Reviews must be conducted objectively. Personal criticism of the author is deemed inappropriate. Reviewers are expected to express their views clearly, with supporting arguments. If there is any justified suspicion about plagiarism or ethical misconduct in the manuscript, the peer reviewer is obliged to inform the Editor about it.

Reviewers should alert the Editor to any well-founded suspicions or the knowledge of possible violations of ethical standards by the authors. Reviewers should recognize relevant published works that have not been cited by the authors and alert the Editor to substantial similarities between a reviewed manuscript and any manuscript published or under consideration for publication elsewhere, in the event, they are aware of such. Reviewers should also alert the Editor to a parallel submission of the same manuscript to another journal, in the event they are aware of such.

A reviewer must fill in data related to the manuscript (title, the area of research, the subject of analysis, adequacy of methodology and interpretation, quality of literature used).

In the Reviewer’s Conclusions section, the peer reviewer needs to check the category of the paper appropriate for the reviewed manuscript (original scientific article or review article), and proceed to check one of the three following options: 

• Paper to be published as it is;
• Paper to be published with mandatory changes with a relevant explanation;
• Paper should not be published with appropriate explanation. 

In the next section, the peer reviewer is requested to fill in his/her name, surname, title, the full name of the institution where he/she is employed and the place and date of the peer-review. These data are confidential and stay with the Editorial Board, and are not sent to the author of the reviewed manuscript. During the review process, reviewers act independently, and without insight into each other’s identities. In cases where the manuscript receives diverging reviews (a positive and a negative one), the Editor will assign an additional reviewer.

Authors that receive conditionally positive reviews are required to take into account the comments made by the reviewers, or if they do not wish to do so, they can withdraw their submissions and report their decision immediately to the Editor. Authors are required to send the amended manuscripts to the Journal within 15 days after they received the reviews. The final evaluation of the manuscripts related to the fulfillment of reviewers’ requests is made by the Editor and the Editorial Board.