The International Journal of Medical Students (IJMS) uses a structured editorial and peer-review process designed to evaluate manuscripts fairly, strengthen promising submissions, protect confidentiality, and maintain the integrity of the scholarly record.
The Journal applies a two-stage, double-masked review model:
Submission does not guarantee external peer review, acceptance, or publication. Editorial decisions consider the manuscript’s relevance, originality, methodological quality, reporting, ethical compliance, clarity, and contribution to the literature.
| Stage | Primary responsibility | Purpose |
|---|---|---|
| Submission | Authors and Editorial Office | Receipt of the title page, masked manuscript, metadata, and supporting files. |
| Administrative check | Editorial Office | Confirmation that the submission is complete, readable, editable, appropriately masked, and suitable for processing. |
| Suitability assessment | Editorial Team | Evaluation of eligibility, scope, article type, originality, and basic scholarly suitability. |
| Internal assessment | Student Editors under senior supervision | Developmental and scholarly evaluation before external review. |
| External peer review | At least two independent experts | Assessment of scientific, clinical, methodological, ethical, and scholarly quality. |
| Editorial decision | Responsible Editor with appropriate oversight | Decision based on the manuscript, editorial assessment, reviews, policies, and available evidence. |
| Revision | Authors | Response to editorial and reviewer comments and submission of revised files. |
| Final evaluation | Editorial Team and reviewers when needed | Determination of whether the manuscript satisfies the requirements for acceptance. |
| Production | Authors, Editors, and Publisher | Formatting, copyediting, proof review, and publication preparation. |
Internal editorial assessment and external peer review are complementary. Internal assessment does not replace independent expert review.
New manuscripts must be submitted through the online submission system. A manuscript sent only by email is not considered formally submitted.
Before submitting, authors should:
The corresponding author is responsible for confirming that:
| Start a New Submission |
| Down | Top |
After submission, the Editorial Office performs an administrative and technical review. This is not a scientific acceptance decision.
The check may confirm:
The submission may be returned for correction when files or information are missing, inconsistent, unreadable, incorrectly assigned, or inadequately masked.
A technical correction request does not mean that the manuscript has passed editorial assessment or will be sent for external review.
| Down | Up | Top |
Submissions that pass the administrative check are evaluated for basic editorial suitability.
This assessment may consider:
A manuscript may be declined without external peer review when it is outside the Journal’s scope, does not meet eligibility requirements, uses an unsuitable article type, lacks sufficient scholarly contribution, presents major methodological limitations, is inadequately reported, or does not comply with editorial or ethical policies.
The Editorial Team may propose reclassification when another article type more accurately reflects the manuscript. Reclassification does not guarantee external review or acceptance.
| Down | Up | Top |
Manuscripts selected for internal assessment are evaluated by Student Editors under the supervision of Associate Editors, Junior Associate Editors, members of the Executive Committee, or other designated senior editors.
This stage combines editorial screening with supervised developmental assessment. It determines whether the manuscript is sufficiently complete, rigorous, relevant, and clearly presented to justify external review.
A request for preliminary revision does not guarantee that the revised manuscript will be sent to external reviewers.
| Down | Up | Top |
Manuscripts selected for further consideration are ordinarily evaluated by at least two independent external reviewers with relevant clinical, scientific, educational, methodological, statistical, or subject-matter expertise.
Reviewers may assess:
Reviewer recommendations are advisory. They inform but do not determine the final editorial decision.
The Journal may obtain additional review when:
Peer review can reduce uncertainty and improve a manuscript, but it cannot guarantee detection of every error, limitation, or integrity concern.
| Down | Up | Top |
Reviewers are selected according to the expertise needed to evaluate the manuscript. Relevant considerations may include:
Authors may be permitted to suggest reviewers or identify individuals they believe should not review the manuscript. The Journal is not required to use or exclude a suggested individual.
Authors must not suggest reviewers who:
False reviewer information, fabricated identities, or author-controlled reviewer accounts constitute peer-review manipulation and may result in rejection and further action.
Reviewers should decline an invitation when a relationship or interest could affect, or reasonably appear to affect, impartiality.
| Down | Up | Top |
The IJMS uses double-masked review. Reviewers are not provided with author-identifying title-page information, and reviewer identities are not disclosed to authors.
Authors must remove unnecessary identifying information from the masked manuscript. Detailed masking instructions are provided on the Manuscript Preparation page.
Double masking reduces some forms of bias but cannot guarantee that identities will remain unknown. Authorship may be inferred from the research topic, setting, self-citations, conference presentations, preprints, public datasets, specialized methods, or other public information.
Institutional, geographic, ethics, or methodological information necessary to evaluate the work should not be removed solely to strengthen masking.
A reviewer who recognizes or suspects an author’s identity should inform the editor when that knowledge could affect impartiality. Recognition alone does not automatically invalidate the review; the editor will assess the reviewer’s independence.
| Down | Up | Top |
Editorial decisions are based on the manuscript, internal assessment, external reviews when obtained, applicable policies, and the judgment of the responsible editors.
| Decision | Meaning |
|---|---|
| Proceed to external review | The manuscript has passed internal assessment and will be evaluated by independent external reviewers. |
| Preliminary revision | The authors are invited to address specified issues before a decision is made about external review. |
| Minor revision | Limited changes, clarification, or correction are required before further consideration. |
| Major revision | Substantial changes are required in the methods, analysis, interpretation, reporting, organization, or presentation. |
| Re-review | The revised manuscript will be evaluated by original or new reviewers. |
| Conditional acceptance | The scientific content is potentially acceptable, but specified editorial, ethical, technical, or formatting requirements remain. |
| Acceptance | The manuscript is accepted for publication, subject to production requirements and continued policy compliance. |
| Decline | The manuscript will not be considered further in its current submission record. |
A revision request is not a commitment to accept the manuscript. A revised submission may be declined when concerns remain unresolved, new concerns emerge, or the authors do not adequately address the comments.
Editors are not required to follow a numerical majority of reviewer recommendations. The responsible editor may reach a different decision when the evidence, policies, or overall scholarly assessment support another outcome.
| Down | Up | Top |
When revision is invited, revised materials must be submitted through the existing manuscript record. Do not begin a new submission unless instructed by the Editorial Team.
Authors should:
When a deadline cannot be met, the corresponding author should request an extension before the deadline. An expired revision may be closed or treated as a new submission at the Editorial Team’s discretion.
Requests to add, remove, or reorder authors must be explained and approved by all affected authors. The Journal may request written documentation and may decline changes inconsistent with authorship criteria.
| Down | Up | Top |
The point-by-point response should allow editors and reviewers to determine efficiently how each concern was addressed.
For each comment:
| Reviewer comment | Please clarify how missing data were handled. |
|---|---|
| Author response | Thank you for identifying this omission. We added a description of the missing-data procedure to the Statistical Analysis subsection. |
| Manuscript change | Methods, Statistical Analysis: “Participants with missing primary-outcome data were excluded from the complete-case analysis. A sensitivity analysis using multiple imputation was also performed.” |
Responses should be complete, specific, evidence-based, professional, respectful, and free from personal criticism.
Authors may disagree with a comment, but the disagreement should be supported by methodological, clinical, scientific, ethical, or editorial reasoning.
Statements such as “changed as requested” are insufficient when they do not identify what changed and where it appears.
| Down | Up | Top |
A revised manuscript may be evaluated by:
Additional review may be required when:
The Journal is not obligated to return every revision to the same reviewers. Reviewer availability, independence, expertise, and the nature of the revision may affect reassignment.
| Down | Up | Top |
A manuscript is accepted only when the responsible editors determine that it is suitable for publication and the required scientific, ethical, authorship, disclosure, reporting, and editorial concerns have been addressed.
Acceptance does not mean that the manuscript will be published without further changes. Accepted manuscripts enter editorial and production preparation.
Authors may be required to:
Complete production requirements are provided on the After Acceptance page.
Acceptance may be withdrawn before publication if substantial undisclosed problems emerge, including plagiarism, data concerns, authorship disputes, duplicate publication, false statements, missing consent, legal restrictions, or other serious policy violations.
| Review the After Acceptance Requirements |
| Down | Up | Top |
A manuscript may be declined at any stage before publication.
Reasons may include:
A rejection applies to the submitted manuscript record. Authors should not submit the same manuscript again as a new submission unless the decision letter expressly permits resubmission.
A substantially redesigned study or manuscript may be considered as a new submission when it constitutes materially different work. A new submission receives a new evaluation and is not guaranteed external review.
| Down | Up | Top |
The corresponding author may request withdrawal through the manuscript record.
The request should:
Withdrawal should not be assumed until acknowledged by the Journal. Authors must not submit the manuscript to another journal while it remains under active consideration by the IJMS.
The Journal may continue an integrity assessment after withdrawal when concerns involve plagiarism, fabricated data, peer-review manipulation, duplicate submission, authorship disputes, ethics violations, or another matter affecting the scholarly record.
| Down | Up | Top |
An appeal should identify a substantive error in the editorial process, factual basis of the decision, interpretation of Journal policy, or evaluation of the manuscript.
An appeal should:
Disagreement with reviewer comments or disappointment with a decision is not, by itself, sufficient grounds for an appeal.
The Journal may decline an appeal that is repetitive, abusive, unsupported, unrelated to the decision, or submitted through multiple channels.
Complaints concerning editorial conduct, confidentiality, conflicts of interest, unreasonable delay, discrimination, harassment, or procedural irregularities should be submitted through the Contact Us page.
Appeals and complaints should be evaluated by an editor or governing body not directly responsible for the disputed matter whenever practical.
An appeal does not guarantee reversal of the decision, external re-review, or publication.
| Down | Up | Top |
Submitted manuscripts, reviewer reports, editorial communications, decision letters, and unpublished data are confidential.
Editors and staff must not:
Reviewers must not:
Authors should treat reviewer reports and editorial correspondence as confidential. They should not publicly identify, harass, or attempt to contact suspected reviewers.
Confidential information may be shared when reasonably necessary for editorial supervision, specialist consultation, research-integrity assessment, legal review, publisher administration, technical support, or compliance with applicable requirements.
| Down | Up | Top |
Editorial processing may be paused when concerns arise regarding:
The Journal may request raw data, analysis files, original images, ethics or consent documentation, registration records, authorship confirmation, funding records, institutional clarification, or other relevant evidence.
The Journal may contact an institution, research-integrity office, ethics committee, funder, publisher, or other appropriate body when necessary.
Failure to respond adequately may result in rejection, withdrawal of acceptance, publication delay, correction, retraction, or other action under the Research Integrity and Post-Publication policies.
| Down | Up | Top |
Editors must disclose relationships or interests that could affect, or reasonably appear to affect, their impartiality.
An editor should not manage a manuscript when the editor:
The manuscript should be reassigned to an independent editor when a relevant conflict exists.
Submissions from members of the Editorial Team, Editorial Board, publisher, or affiliated organizations must not receive preferential treatment. Conflicted individuals must be excluded from assessment, reviewer selection, and decision-making.
| Down | Up | Top |
During editorial assessment and peer review, authors must:
Reviewers should provide an independent, evidence-based, constructive, and timely assessment. They should:
The Journal may edit, withhold, or disregard reviewer comments that are abusive, discriminatory, personally directed, irrelevant, unsupported, promotional, coercive, or confidentiality-violating.
| Down | Up | Top |
Student Editors contribute to manuscript assessment and author development under structured supervision. They do not independently exercise final editorial authority.
Final decisions are made by appropriately authorized editors under the governance of the Executive Committee and Editorial Board.
The responsible editors may:
| Review the Checklist | After Acceptance | Submit a Manuscript |
| Down | Up | Top |
Dear IJMS Readers,
The International Journal of Medical Students (IJMS) is pleased to invite you to the 2026 World Conference of Medical Student Research (WCMSR), taking place live on July 11 and 12, 2026.
WCMSR 2026 brings together medical students, trainees, and early-career researchers from institutions across the...
Dear IJMS Readers,
On behalf of the International Journal of Medical Students (IJMS), we are pleased to announce the research selected for presentation at the World Conference of Medical Student Research (WCMSR), taking place on July 11–12, 2026 freely available for everyone and streemed online in our
This journal is published by Pitt Open Library Publishing.
ISSN 2076-6327 (online)
