Review Guidelines

The International Journal for Research in Medical Physics (IJRMP) upholds ethical review standards consistent with the principles of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), global research integrity frameworks, and responsible academic publishing practices.

Peer review is an essential part of maintaining academic and scientific quality. Reviewers serve independent subject experts responsible for assessing the scientific rigor, originality, relevance, a contribution of submitted manuscripts.

1. Peer Review Model

IJRMP follows a double-blind peer-review process:

  • Manuscripts are evaluated by qualified experts in the relevant subject are
  • Reviewer and author identities are kept confidential where applicabl
  • Manuscripts are assessed independently and objectively.
  • Editorial decisions are based on reviewer recommendations and the overall academic and scientific merit of the manuscrip

The review process is conducted fairly and without discrimination based on nationality, institutional affiliation, gender, or personal belie

2. Reviewer Responsibilities

By accepting a review assignment, reviewers agree to:

2.1 Academic Integrity

  • Evaluate manuscripts solely on their scientific and scholarly meri
  • Assess the originality, research methodology, scientific validity, and relevance of t manuscript.
  • Provide constructive and evidence-based comments.
  • Avoid personal bias or conflicts that could influence the rev

2.2 Confidentiali

Submitted manuscripts are confidential intellectual property. Reviewers mus

  • Not share, distribute, or discuss manuscripts with unauthorized individuals.
  • Not use unpublished information or data for personal research or professional benefi
  • Maintain the confidentiality of the manuscript throughout and after the review proces

Confidentiality obligations continue after completion of the revie

3. Conflict of Interest Disclosu

Reviewers must decline a review assignment if a conflict of interest could affect their impartialit including:

  • Recent collaboration with the authors.
  • Institutional affiliation overl
  • Financial or funding relationships.
  • Direct academic or professional competition.
  • Personal relationships with the authors.

Any potential conflict of interest should be disclosed to the Editor before accepting or continuing t review.

4. Ethical Vigilance and Research Misconduct

Reviewers are expected to help safeguard research and publication integrity by identifying possible concerns, including:

  • Plagiarism or substantial similarity.
  • Data fabrication or falsificatio
  • Manipulation of images, figures, tables, or research result
  • Duplicate or redundant publication.
  • Undisclosed or inappropriate use of artificial intelligenc
  • Citation manipulation.
  • Ethical concerns relating to human or animal research.

Concerns should be reported confidentially to the editorial office rather than directly to the aut

5. Evaluation Standards

Reviewers should evaluate manuscripts according to appropriate scientific and academic criteri

5.1 Scientific Contributi

  • Clearly defined research objective
  • Relevant research question or hypothesis.
  • Meaningful contribution to medical physics.
  • Appropriate interpretation of scientific findi

5.2 Methodological Rigor

  • Appropriate research design.
  • Clearly described methods.
  • Suitable experimental, clinical, computational, or analytical procedures.
  • Appropriate analysis and interpretation of data.
  • Sufficient information to support scientific evalua

5.3 Results and Discussion

  • Clear and accurate presentation of results.
  • Appropriate interpretation of finding
  • Discussion supported by relevant scientific evidenc
  • Appropriate acknowledgement of limitations.

5.4 Literature and Referencing Standards

  • Use of relevant and credible scientific literatur
  • Appropriate and accurate citations.
  • Balanced and ethical referencing practices.
  • Proper acknowledgement of previously published research.

5.5 Clarity and Scholarly Communication

  • Logical organization of the manuscript.
  • Clear presentation of scientific argument
  • Appropriate scientific terminolog
  • Readable and professional academic language.

6. Responsible Use of Artificial Intelligen

Reviewers must:

  • Not upload confidential manuscripts or unpublished manuscript content to public platforms or third-party tools.
  • Not use generative AI in a manner that compromises manuscript confidentialit
  • Ensure that any permitted language assistance does not replace independent scholarly judgment.
  • Maintain the confidentiality and intellectual integrity of the review proces

7. Timeliness and Professional Conduct

  • Reviewers should complete reviews within the timeframe provided by the editorial offi
  • Extensions should be requested promptly when additional time is required.
  • Reviewers should provide constructive, respectful, and professional feedback.
  • Reviews should focus on the manuscript and its scientific content rather than the autho personally.

Repeated failure to meet agreed review deadlines without communication may affect future review invitations.

8. Decision Recommendations

Reviewers may provide recommendations such as:

  • Accept
  • Minor Revision
  • Major Revision
  • Reject

Recommendations should be supported by clear, specific, and evidence-based comments that expla the basis for the recommendation.

The final publication decision remains with the editorial tea

9. Accountability and Transparency

The editorial office maintains appropriate records of peer-review activities to support accountabil and ethical oversight.

Serious or repeated breaches of reviewer responsibilities may result in:

  • Removal from the reviewer database.
  • Suspension of future review invitations.
  • Referral to the reviewer's affiliated institution or relevant academic body where appropria

10. Commitment to Scientific Excellen

By participating in the peer-review process, reviewers contribute to:

  • Maintaining scientific and academic standard
  • Strengthening the quality of medical physics research.
  • Supporting responsible research and publication practices.
  • Promoting ethical and constructive scholarly communication.

IJRMP recognizes reviewers as important contributors to maintaining the quality, integrity, and credibility of published scientific research