Peer Review Process

Manuscripts submitted to NRMJ are sent for review only if they pass the initial evaluations regarding their forms and scope. The initial evaluation does not last more than 48 hours. Under normal circumstances, the review process takes up to 3 weeks, and only exceptionally up to 4 weeks. The total period from the submission of a manuscript till its publication takes an average of 25-35 days, with few exceptions. The entire review process takes place under the supervision of the Editor-in-Chief in an online system. This system allows the authors to track the entire process of reviewing their manuscripts. NRMJ does not guarantee manuscript acceptance or very short peer review times.

      Upon submission of a manuscript for publication in NRMJ, it is checked by the Editor-in-Chief to ensure that all the submitted files are complete, the manuscript falls within the aim and scope of the journal, of a good quality, and has a relevant similarity percentage (Plagiarism) of 16-20 %. If the manuscript is appropriate, the Editor-in Chief assigns it to a specified Associate Editor. The Editor-in-Chief can reject a manuscript before sending it to the concerned Associate Editor for reviewing; if it does not satisfies the pre-mentioned criteria. Meanwhile, the Editor-in-Chief may check the manuscript, and then send it back to the corresponding author before reviewing; in order to check the similarity percentage, and/ or improve a certain criterion if possible, and then the author is allowed to re-submit the manuscript to the journal.

       The Associate Editor then assigns the manuscript into two potential reviewer's that are expert in the field, and who are not part of the journal’s editorial staff to peer review it. NRMJ uses a double-blind review system for all papers. Each manuscript is reviewed by at least two reviewers. The reviewers act independently, and they are not aware of each other's identities. The reviewers are selected solely according to their relevant expertise for evaluating a manuscript. They must not be from the same institution as the author(s) of the manuscript, nor be their co-authors. The purpose of peer review is to assist the Editorial Board in making decisions of whether to accept or reject a paper. In the event of delays in the reviewing process, the corresponding author will be informed about the reason for the delay, and will be given the opportunity to withdraw his/ her manuscript, if he/ she wish. If there is a supplementary material, it is subjected to peer reviewing. The reviews are not posted with the articles. There are no exceptions to the peer review process (i.e. there are no specific article types that do not undergo peer reviewing).

       If there is a doubt about the objectivity or quality of review, the Editor-in-Chief will assign additional reviewer(s). Moreover, additional reviewers may also be assigned when reviewers' decisions (accept or reject) are contrary to each other, and/ or otherwise substantially incompatible. The final decision on the acceptance of the manuscript for publication rests solely with the Editor-in-Chief. 

        According to the review reports submitted by the reviewers, the Associate Editor may recommend one of the following decisions: 

“Reject”; the review reports are sent to the corresponding author, if one or both review reports rejected the manuscript, and the author is notified that his/ her manuscript will no longer be considered for publication in the NRMJ journal.

“Major Revision”; the corresponding author is informed to prepare and submit an updated version of the manuscript with the major changes recommended by the reviewers and by the Associate Editor. After responding to the recommended changes, the manuscript is then reviewed again by one or both of the original reviewers before the Associate Editor makes a new decision. 

“Minor Revision”; the authors are requested to correct, edit, and then submit a revised copy of the manuscript with the addressed minor changes recommended by the reviewers and the Associate Editor. As soon as all the recommended corrections are fulfilled; the Associate Editor can recommend “Final Accept”, and the corresponding author will be notified about acceptance of the manuscript.

“Final Accept”, the manuscript will be edited by the Editorial office according to the journal's guidelines, and then a Galley Proof (PDF file) will be sent to the corresponding author, and he/ she will be requested to review, and check the PDF before online publication. The Galley Proof involves the final format of the article without the page numbers, date of online publish, and without the DOI number. If the corresponding author has any notes or remarks, they will be checked by the Associate Editor, and the Editorial office will be requested to make the necessary changes if appropriate. However, after the corresponding author approves the Galley Proof, the Editor-in-Chief will make a final revision of the manuscript, and if he approves the manuscript; he will recommend "Publish". The final PDF file will be assigned page numbers, date of online publish, and DOI.

       Finally, the NRMJ will publish the article online within 24-48 hours (starting from November, 2021), and an E-mail will be sent to the corresponding author to inform him that his/ her article has been published online, attached with a PDF copy of the published article.

-Authors' responsibilities

      Authors warrant that their manuscripts are their original works; have not been published before, and are not under consideration for publication elsewhere. Parallel submission of the same paper to another journal constitutes misconduct, and eliminates the manuscript from further consideration. The work that has already been published elsewhere cannot be re-published in NRMJ. Authors are exclusively responsible for the contents of their submissions, and affirm that the article contains no unfounded or unlawful statements.  

     Authors must make sure that their author team listed in the manuscript includes all and only those authors who have significantly contributed to the submitted manuscript. If persons other than authors were involved in important aspects of the research project and in the preparation of the manuscript, their contribution should be acknowledged in the section of Acknowledgments.    

      It is the responsibility of the authors to specify the title and code number of the research project within which the work was created, as well as the full title of the funding institution. In case a submitted manuscript has been presented at a conference in the form of an oral presentation, detailed information about the conference should be provided. Parts of the manuscript, including text; equations, pictures and tables that are taken verbatim from other works must be clearly marked, e.g. by quotation marks accompanied by their location in the original document (page number). Full references of each quotation (in-text citation) must be listed in the section of References in a uniform manner. When authors discover a significant error or inaccuracy in their own published work, it is their responsibility to promptly notify the Editor-in-Chief, and cooperate with him to retract or correct the paper. By submitting a manuscript the authors agree to abide by the Editorial policies of NRMJ.

-Reviewers' responsibilities

      Reviewers are required to provide the qualified and timely assessment of the scholarly merits of the manuscript. The reviewer takes special care of the real contribution and originality of the manuscript, and the review must be fully objective. The judgment of the reviewers must be clear and substantiated by arguments.

        The reviewers assess the manuscript for compliance with the guidelines of the journal; the relevance of the investigated topic and applied methods, the scientific relevance of the information presented in the manuscript, and the presentation style. The review has a standard format. It is submitted through the online journal submission system where it is stored permanently. The reviewer must not be in a conflict of interest with the authors or funders of the research. If such a conflict exists, the reviewer is obliged to promptly notify the Editor-in-Chief. The reviewer should not accept reviewing papers that are beyond the field of his/ her full competence.

       Reviewers should alert the Editor-in-Chief to any well-founded suspicions or the knowledge of possible violations of ethical standards by the authors. They should recognize the relevant published works that have not been considered in the manuscript. They may recommend specific references for citation, but should not require citing papers published in NRMJ, or their own papers, unless they are justified. The reviewers are expected to improve the quality of the manuscript through their suggestions. If they recommend correction of the manuscript prior to publication, they are obliged to specify the manner in which this can be achieved.

       Any manuscripts received for reviewing must be treated as confidential documents. Reviewers must not use the unpublished materials disclosed in the submitted manuscripts without the express written consent of the authors.

-Editorial responsibilities

      The Editor-in-Chief is responsible for deciding which articles submitted to the journal will be published. The decisions are made based exclusively on the manuscript's merit. They must be free from any racial, gender, sexual, religious, ethnic or political bias. When making decisions the Editor-in-Chief is also guided by the editorial policy and legal provisions relating to defamation, copyright infringement, and plagiarism. His responsibilities are to determine the atmosphere, orientation, and policies of the journal. The Editor in chief has the final say regarding the journal’s internal affairs. He is the one who finally confirms the content of the journal and approves the output of the journal. An Editor-in- chief continually receives reports from the journal sections, and studies them to identify and address the journal’s needs. The Chief Editor meets with the Editorial board on a regular basis and responds to the needs of the audience by identifying the key issues. The other roles of the Editor-in-Chief are estimating the overall budget required by the journal, and making sure that it is provided.

       The Managing Editor is responsible to reporting to the Editor in Chief, supervision of the Editorial team, assigning articles, overseeing publication schedules, making decisions in collaboration with the Editor-in-Chief on submissions, and overseeing the daily activities of the journal. Meanwhile, the Associate Editor major roles are: to inviting the reviewers to join the journal; monitoring the works of the reviewers, observing the reviewers’ comments on the concerned article, and announcing the final decision made by the Editor-in-Chief for the article.

       The Editorial Board member's responsibilities are to provide feedback on past issues and making suggestions for both subject matter and potential authors. In addition to adding credibility to the NRMJ and approach potential contributors, identifying appropriate conferences for the Editors to attend, endorsing the NRMJ to authors, readers and subscribers, encouraging colleagues to submit their best works, suggesting reviewers for the assigned manuscript, maintaining highest standards of ethics and competence, and encouraging the submission of articles to the NRMJ by their networks.

    Members of the Associate Editors and Editorial Board including the Editor-in-Chief must hold no conflict of interest with regard to the articles they consider for publication. Members, who feel they might be perceived as being involved in such a conflict, do not participate in the decision process for a particular manuscript. The information and ideas presented in the submitted manuscripts shall be kept confidential. Information and ideas contained in unpublished materials must not be used for personal gain without the written consents of the authors.

     The Associate Editors and the Editorial staff shall take all reasonable measures to ensure that the author's and reviewers remain anonymous during and after the evaluation process, in accordance with the type of reviewing in use. The Associate Editors and the Editorial Board are obliged to assist the reviewers with additional information on the manuscript, including results of checking the manuscript for plagiarism.