Peer Review Policy

Peer Review Policy

The Journal of Experimental and Clinical Anatomy (JECA) is committed to maintaining high standards of scholarly quality through a fair, rigorous, timely, and ethical peer review process. Peer review is essential to the evaluation, improvement, and validation of scientific work and is conducted in accordance with recognized international best practices.

JECA operates a double-blind peer review system, in which the identities of authors and reviewers are concealed from one another wherever practicable.

1. Initial Editorial Assessment

Upon submission, each manuscript is first assessed by the Managing Editor, Assistant Editor, Section Editor, or another designated editorial representative to determine whether it:

  • complies with the journal’s Author Guidelines;
  • falls within the aims and scope of the journal;
  • meets basic standards of scientific quality, structure, and presentation; and
  • satisfies the journal’s ethical and editorial requirements.

At this stage, a manuscript may be returned to the authors for technical correction, declined without external review, or forwarded for editorial handling and peer review.

2. Assignment to an Editor

Manuscripts that pass the initial assessment are assigned to an appropriate handling editor or Editorial Board member.

The handling editor must not have any actual, potential, or perceived conflict of interest with the manuscript or its authors. Editors with relevant conflicts must recuse themselves from the editorial process for that submission.

3. Double-Blind Peer Review

JECA uses a double-blind peer review process. Under this model:

  • reviewers do not know the identity of the authors; and
  • authors do not know the identity of the reviewers.

Authors are expected to prepare manuscripts for blinded review in accordance with the journal’s submission requirements.

While the journal takes reasonable steps to preserve reviewer and author anonymity, complete anonymity cannot always be guaranteed in all cases, particularly in highly specialized fields or where preprints, prior presentations, or self-referencing may reveal identity indirectly.

4. Selection of Reviewers

The handling editor selects suitably qualified independent reviewers based on their subject expertise, academic experience, and ability to provide an objective assessment.

As a general principle, reviewers should not:

  • have recent co-authorship with any of the authors;
  • be affiliated with the same institution as any of the authors;
  • have any personal, academic, financial, or professional conflict of interest that could affect impartiality.

Reviewers are expected to declare any conflict of interest and to decline the invitation if objective review is not possible.

5. Number of Reviewers

All research manuscripts, and other article types as appropriate, are normally sent to at least two independent reviewers.

Editorials and certain invited content may be handled at the discretion of the Editor-in-Chief and may not always undergo external peer review.

The journal reserves the right to seek additional reviews, statistical review, methodological review, or specialist advice where necessary.

6. Reviewer Recommendations

Reviewers are asked to evaluate the manuscript and provide comments for both the authors and the editor. Reviewer recommendations may include one of the following:

  • Accept without revision
  • Minor revision
  • Major revision
  • Reject

Reviewer recommendations are advisory. Final decisions are made by the Editor or Editor-in-Chief.

7. Editorial Decisions

After considering the reviewer reports and editorial assessment, the handling editor or Editor-in-Chief may make one of the following decisions:

  • Accept
  • Minor revision
  • Major revision
  • Reject

Where revisions are requested, authors are expected to respond to all reviewer and editorial comments point-by-point and to submit a revised manuscript within the specified timeframe.

8. Revision Process

If revision is requested, authors will ordinarily be given:

  • up to two weeks for minor revision; and
  • up to two to four weeks for major revision,

unless otherwise specified by the journal.

Extensions may be granted at the discretion of the editorial office where justified.

Revised manuscripts may be:

  • assessed directly by the handling editor; or
  • returned to one or more original reviewers for further evaluation, particularly where substantial revisions have been requested.

The number of revision rounds will depend on the nature of the required changes and the editorial assessment of the revised manuscript.

9. Timeliness of Peer Review

JECA aims to ensure timely editorial handling and peer review. Reviewers are normally requested to submit their reports within two weeks of accepting the invitation.

If a reviewer is unable to complete the review within the requested timeframe, they should inform the editor promptly. The journal may grant a short extension or reassign the manuscript to another reviewer.

10. Confidentiality and Ethical Conduct

All manuscripts under review are confidential documents. Editors and reviewers must not disclose, discuss, or use unpublished material for personal or professional advantage.

Reviewers and editors are expected to adhere to JECA’s policies on:

  • reviewer confidentiality;
  • conflicts of interest;
  • publication ethics;
  • research integrity.

Any suspected misconduct, ethical concern, plagiarism, duplicate submission, image manipulation, or inappropriate authorship issue identified during review should be reported to the handling editor or Editor-in-Chief.

11. Acceptance and Production

If a manuscript is accepted for publication, the authors will receive page proofs or galley proofs for final review and correction of typographical or production errors.

Following proof correction and final production processing, the article will be published online and assigned a Digital Object Identifier (DOI). Once published online, the article becomes part of the permanent scholarly record and may be cited accordingly.

Where the journal operates an Articles in Press, Online First, or similar early publication system, accepted articles may appear online in advance of issue assignment.

12. Editorial Independence

Editorial decisions are made independently and are not influenced by advertising, sponsorship, institutional affiliation, or other commercial considerations.

The Editors retain full responsibility for the final decision on all submitted manuscripts.