Peer Review Policy

JGMDS is a double blind, peer-reviewed journal. Each manuscript is reviewed by a panel of two experts in the field. The comments of reviewers are conveyed to the authors for incorporation of the reviewers’ comments. Further evaluation is conducted by the respective editors and finally by the chief editor. If accepted, authors are informed and manuscripts are kept on the waiting list for publication.

All submitted manuscripts undergo an initial editorial assessment to determine their relevance to the journal’s scope, compliance with submission guidelines, and overall quality. Manuscripts that meet these preliminary criteria are forwarded to two independent external reviewers with subject-specific expertise, selected from a regularly updated reviewer database. In the double-blind review model, both authors and reviewers remain anonymous to eliminate any potential bias.

Reviewers are asked to evaluate each manuscript on the basis of originality, scientific validity, methodological soundness, ethical adherence, clarity of results, and relevance of cited literature. Although language correction is not a primary part of the review process, reviewers may suggest improvements in this area if they wish. Additionally, reviewers are expected to identify any relevant studies not cited by the authors and to point out conflicting findings or arguments where necessary. To ensure impartiality, reviewers must declare any conflicts of interest and decline to review if any bias is present.

Based on reviewers’ evaluations, the editorial team makes a decision from one of the following options: accept with minor editorial revisions, revise and resubmit after addressing specific concerns, reject with constructive feedback, or reject outright due to lack of originality or serious technical or conceptual flaws. While reviewers may recommend a course of action, the final decision lies with the Editor-in-Chief and the editorial board, who carefully weigh the strength of each reviewer’s arguments and the author’s responses.

The review process typically takes 3 to 4 weeks, depending on reviewer responsiveness. Reviewer comments are shared with authors, and revised manuscripts may go through additional review rounds until a final decision is made. To acknowledge their contribution, reviewers receive a formal certificate of appreciation upon completing their review, and their names are published annually in the December issue of the journal.

JGMDS is committed to the continuous improvement of its peer review process. Feedback from reviewers, authors, and editorial board members is actively sought to enhance the system’s efficiency, transparency, and academic quality. This comprehensive peer review policy reflects the journal’s dedication to upholding high scholarly standards and supporting the advancement of evidence-based knowledge in the medical and dental sciences.

Rewarding Reviewers: Acknowledgement and appreciation email along with the online reviewer certificate is sent on completion of the review from the JGMDS.