Peer Review Process

Medical Laboratory Science Journal (MedLab) employs a rigorous double-blind peer review process to ensure the quality, originality, scientific integrity, and scholarly contribution of every manuscript submitted for publication. Throughout the review process, the identities of both authors and reviewers remain anonymous to promote fairness, objectivity, and academic integrity.

1. Initial Editorial Screening

All submitted manuscripts undergo an initial editorial screening conducted by the Editorial Office and the Editor-in-Chief. At this stage, manuscripts are evaluated to determine whether they:

Align with the journal's aims and scope.
Comply with the Author Guidelines and manuscript formatting requirements.
Demonstrate sufficient scientific quality, originality, and methodological rigor.
Meet ethical publishing standards.
Pass plagiarism screening using Turnitin or equivalent plagiarism detection software.

For studies involving human participants, biological specimens, clinical data, or laboratory animals, the Editorial Office also verifies the completeness of ethical approval statements and compliance with applicable ethical standards.

Manuscripts that do not satisfy these requirements may be returned to the authors for correction or rejected before entering the peer review process.

2. Reviewer Assignment

Manuscripts that successfully pass the editorial screening are assigned to at least two independent reviewers with expertise relevant to the manuscript's subject area.

MedLab applies a double-blind peer review system, ensuring that the identities of both authors and reviewers remain confidential throughout the review process.

Whenever appropriate, reviewers are selected based on expertise in specific areas of medical laboratory science, such as clinical chemistry, hematology, microbiology, molecular diagnostics, immunology, pathology, laboratory quality management, biomedical sciences, or related disciplines.

3. Peer Review Process

Reviewers evaluate manuscripts objectively based on the following criteria:

Originality and novelty of the study.
Relevance to the journal's aims and scope.
Scientific significance and contribution to medical laboratory science.
Quality of the literature review and scientific rationale.
Appropriateness and rigor of the study design, laboratory methods, and statistical analysis.
Validity, reproducibility, and interpretation of laboratory findings.
Organization, clarity, and quality of scientific writing.
Clinical, diagnostic, educational, or public health relevance where applicable.
Appropriateness of references and engagement with current scientific literature.

Reviewers are expected to provide constructive, objective, and evidence-based comments that assist authors in improving the quality of their manuscripts.

4. Review Timeline

Reviewers are generally requested to complete their evaluation within 4–6 weeks after accepting the review invitation.

If reviewers are unable to complete the review within the allocated timeframe, they are encouraged to notify the Editorial Office promptly.

5. Review Recommendations

Based on the evaluation, reviewers may recommend one of the following decisions:

Accept
Minor Revision
Major Revision
Reject

If substantial differences arise between reviewers' recommendations, the Editor may assign an additional reviewer to obtain an independent assessment before making the final editorial decision.

6. Editorial Decision

The final decision regarding manuscript acceptance, revision, or rejection rests solely with the Editor-in-Chief, taking into consideration the reviewers' recommendations, the manuscript's scientific merit, ethical compliance, and its relevance to the journal's aims and scope.

Authors will receive the editorial decision together with anonymous reviewer comments and recommendations.

For manuscripts requiring revision, authors must submit:

A revised manuscript.
A detailed point-by-point response explaining how each reviewer comment has been addressed.

Revised manuscripts may be returned to the reviewers for further evaluation when considered necessary by the Editor.

7. Reviewer Ethics and Responsibilities

Reviewers are expected to uphold the highest standards of publication ethics by:

Maintaining strict confidentiality of all manuscripts under review.
Providing objective, constructive, and timely evaluations.
Declaring any actual or potential conflicts of interest before accepting a review assignment.
Declining review invitations when a conflict of interest or insufficient expertise exists.
Informing the Editor of any suspected plagiarism, duplicate publication, citation manipulation, data fabrication, falsification, image manipulation, or other forms of research misconduct.
Respecting the confidentiality of unpublished laboratory data, clinical findings, and proprietary information.

8. Ethical Standards

MedLab follows the principles and best practices established by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), including the COPE Core Practices and the COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers, to ensure a fair, transparent, and ethical peer review process.

The journal also supports internationally accepted ethical standards for biomedical and laboratory research involving human participants, biological materials, laboratory animals, and clinical investigations.

9. Appeals

Authors who believe that an editorial decision was based on a misunderstanding or procedural error may submit a written appeal to the Editorial Office, accompanied by a clear and detailed justification.

Appeals will be reviewed independently by the Editor-in-Chief and, where appropriate, members of the Editorial Board. The decision reached following the appeal review shall be considered final.