The review process is a cornerstone in maintaining the quality and integrity of publications in the MDA Journal. We are committed to a rigorous and transparent peer review system, designed to ensure each manuscript meets the highest academic standards. Typically, manuscripts undergo evaluation by at least two independent expert reviewers. However, specific journals within our publication may adopt variations in their review methods, including open or anonymized peer review systems.
Understanding Peer Review
Peer review is a critical assessment mechanism that ensures the quality, originality, validity, and significance of scholarly manuscripts prior to publication. Independent experts in the relevant field evaluate each submission to assist editors in making informed publication decisions.
The Peer Review Mechanism
Upon submission:
- Initial Editorial Assessment: Manuscripts are reviewed for compliance with submission guidelines and basic quality standards.
- Assignment to Reviewers: If the manuscript passes the initial check, it is assigned to peer reviewers with relevant expertise.
- Review and Recommendations: Reviewers provide detailed evaluations, offering constructive feedback and recommendations to guide the editorial decision.
Peer Review Guidelines
- Submissions are initially screened for completeness and adherence to journal guidelines.
- An editorial assessment determines whether a manuscript proceeds to peer review.
- In cases where an editor has a conflict of interest or is an author, another member of the editorial board will manage the review process.
- The final decision on publication considers peer reviewers' reports, with their evaluations carrying significant weight.
Selecting Peer Reviewers
The selection of reviewers is crucial to the integrity of the process. Reviewers are chosen based on:
- Subject expertise
- Reputation and qualifications
- Absence of conflicts of interest
- Previous performance as reviewers
We value reviewers who demonstrate efficiency, thoroughness, clear reasoning, and professionalism.
Editor Responsibilities
- Securing at least two independent peer reviews for primary research manuscripts (exceptions apply in niche fields where a single, thorough review may be appropriate).
- Ensuring all reviews are conducted in English, providing constructive feedback, and addressing the validity of the manuscript’s methods, results, and conclusions.
- Independently verifying reviewer contact details—preferably institutional email addresses—and ensuring that at least one reviewer is not recommended by the authors.
- Managing submissions that do not require peer review (e.g., editorials, book reviews) with appropriate editorial expertise or independent expert advice.
In exceptional cases where two independent reviews cannot be obtained, editors may:
- Act as a second reviewer (if expertise permits), or
- Proceed with a single, comprehensive review, ensuring transparency about the process.
Ensuring Diversity and Integrity
The MDA Journal is committed to promoting diversity and inclusion in its peer review practices. We strive for demographic diversity among our pool of reviewers and ensure all reviewers disclose potential conflicts of interest. While we respect authors' suggestions and exclusion requests, the final decision regarding reviewer selection rests with the editors, in the interest of maintaining integrity and objectivity.
Peer Review Models
The MDA Journal supports various peer review models to accommodate the diverse preferences of our authors and reviewers, including:
- Open Peer Review
- Transparent Review
- Anonymized (Single or Double-Blind) Review
Our Commitment
Our peer review process reflects our dedication to:
- Upholding the highest standards of research integrity
- Ensuring fairness and equity
- Fostering a thorough, inclusive, and constructive evaluation of all manuscripts submitted to the MDA Journal