The review process is a cornerstone in maintaining the quality and integrity of publications in the MDA Journal. This process is meticulously designed to involve scrutiny by at least two independent, expert peer reviewers, although specific journals within our publication may adopt variations in their review methodologies, including open or anonymized peer review systems.
Understanding Peer Review
Peer review serves as a critical assessment mechanism, ensuring the quality, originality, validity, and significance of manuscripts prior to publication. It involves independent experts in the pertinent research field evaluating submissions to assist editors in making informed publication decisions.
The Peer Review Mechanism
Upon submission, manuscripts undergo a preliminary evaluation to verify their adherence to submission guidelines. Qualifying manuscripts are then assigned to peer reviewers with relevant expertise, who provide detailed evaluations and recommendations.
Peer Review Guidelines
Submissions are initially examined for completeness, followed by an editorial assessment to determine their suitability for peer review. In instances where an editor has a conflict of interest or is among the authors, another editorial board member takes charge of the review process. The ultimate publication decision considers the peer reviewers' insights, with significant weight given to their evaluations and recommendations.
Selecting Peer Reviewers
The selection of peer reviewers is pivotal, relying on their expertise, reputation, recommendations, absence of conflicts of interest, and prior review performance. Qualities such as efficiency, thoroughness, sound reasoning, and professionalism are highly valued.
Editor Responsibilities
Editors play a crucial role in ensuring a robust review process by:
- Ensuring at least two peer reviews for primary research manuscripts, with allowances for exceptions in niche fields where a single detailed review might suffice.
- Mandating reviews to be in English, offering constructive criticism and validating the manuscript's methods, results, and conclusions.
- Independently verifying suggested reviewers' contact details, preferably using institutional email addresses, and ensuring at least one reviewer is not recommended by the authors.
- Considering manuscripts that do not require peer review (e.g., editorials, book reviews) based on the editor's expertise or an independent expert review.
In exceptional cases where two independent reviews are unattainable, the editor may act as a second reviewer or rely on a single thorough report, with expectations for transparency and expertise clearly outlined.
Ensuring Diversity and Integrity
The MDA Journal is committed to diversity and inclusion, striving for demographic diversity among peer reviewers. Potential reviewers must disclose any conflicts of interest, and the selection process respects authors' suggestions and exclusions within reason, prioritizing the editor's final decision on reviewer selection.
Peer Review Models
The MDA Journal supports various peer review models, including open, transparent, and anonymized reviews, to accommodate the preferences and requirements of our diverse author and reviewer community.
This enhanced review process underscores our dedication to upholding the highest standards of research integrity and publication quality, fostering an inclusive, equitable, and thorough evaluation of manuscripts.