Medical Laboratory Technology Journal (MedLab) implements a rigorous double-blind peer-review process to ensure the quality, integrity, and academic contribution of each published manuscript. In the double-blind system, the identities of both reviewers and authors are concealed throughout the review process.

Review Procedure

• Each submitted manuscript undergoes an initial editorial screening to assess alignment with the journal’s focus, scope, and formatting requirements.
• Manuscripts that pass the initial screening will be assigned to at least two independent reviewers with relevant subject expertise.
• Reviewers evaluate manuscripts based on originality, methodological rigor, clarity of presentation, validity of findings, and contribution to medical laboratory science.
• Reviewers are expected to complete their evaluations within 4 to 6 weeks of accepting the review assignment.
• Review decisions are categorized as: Accept, Minor Revision, Major Revision, or Reject.
• If significant discrepancies exist between reviewers, an additional reviewer may be appointed at the discretion of the editorial board.

Editorial Decision

• The Editor-in-Chief makes the final decision on acceptance, revision, or rejection based on reviewers’ recommendations and manuscript quality.
• Authors will receive the editorial decision along with constructive feedback from reviewers to guide manuscript improvement.
• Revised manuscripts must be resubmitted within the specified timeframe, along with a point-by-point response to reviewer comments.

Ethical Considerations

• All reviewers are expected to maintain strict confidentiality regarding manuscript content and must not use information from the review for personal gain.
• Reviewers must disclose any conflicts of interest that may compromise objectivity and should recuse themselves when appropriate.
• MedLab adheres to COPE's Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers and is committed to the highest standards of integrity in peer review.

Appeals

Authors who believe that a decision was made in error may submit a formal appeal to the Editorial Office, providing a detailed justification. Appeals will be independently reviewed by the editorial board, and the board’s decision is final.