Peer Review Process

• Step 1: Initial Editorial Check (1-3 days)
  Upon submission, the managing editor performs a technical check for:
  • Compliance with the journal's scope and author guidelines.
  • Similarity check using plagiarism detection software (e.g., iThenticate) to ensure originality.
  • Completeness of submission (e.g., abstract, figures, ethics approval).
• Step 2: Editorial Assessment (3-5 days)
  The Editor-in-Chief or an Associate Editor assesses the manuscript's scientific quality, novelty, and significance. Manuscripts that do not meet the journal's basic standards are declined at this stage (desk rejection), with feedback to the author.
• Step 3: Peer Review (4-6 weeks)
  Manuscripts passing initial screening are sent to a minimum of two independent reviewers who are experts in the field. Reviewers are selected based on their expertise, publication history, and past review quality. They are asked to evaluate:
  • Originality and significance
  • Methodology and statistical validity
  • Clarity of presentation
  • Ethical conduct of research
  • Accuracy of references
    Reviewers provide a detailed report and a recommendation: Accept, Minor Revision, Major Revision, or Reject.
• Step 4: Editorial Decision (1 week)
  The Editor-in-Chief considers all reviews to make a final decision. The decision and the reviewers' comments are communicated to the corresponding author.
• Step 5: Revision (Author's Timeline)
  Authors are typically given:
  • 3 weeks to return a minor revision.
  • 6 weeks to return a major revision.
    Extensions can be requested.
• Step 6: Evaluation of Revisions
  Revised manuscripts are often sent back to the original reviewers for re-evaluation. This cycle may repeat until the manuscript meets the required standards.
• Step 7: Acceptance and Production
  Once accepted, the manuscript undergoes professional copyediting, typesetting, and proofreading. Proofs are sent to authors for final approval before publication.

• Confidentiality: Reviewers must treat the manuscript as confidential.
• Conflict of Interest: Reviewers must declare any competing interests.
• Objectivity: Reviews should be constructive, objective, and free from personal criticism.
• Source Acknowledgement: Reviewers should not use knowledge of the work before its publication for their own advantage.

5. Appeals Process
Authors who wish to appeal an editorial decision must submit a formal letter to the editorial office (pcnmzums.ac.ir), detailing their point-by-point response to the reviewers' and editor's comments. Appeals are considered by the Editor-in-Chief and a senior editorial board member not involved in the initial decision. Their decision is final.