Peer Review Process

1. Peer Review Process

• NMC Journal follows a double-blind peer review
• The identities of both the reviewers and authors are kept confidential throughout the review process.

2. Manuscript Submission

• Authors submit their manuscripts through the journal’s online submission system.

3. Initial Editorial Evaluation

• The editorial team conducts an initial evaluation of the manuscript to determine its suitability for publication in the journal.

4. Assignment of Reviewers

• Qualified and relevant reviewers are selected by the editorial team to evaluate the manuscript.

5. Double-Blind Review

• Reviewers evaluate the manuscript without knowing the identity of the authors.
• Similarly, authors are unaware of the identities of the reviewers.

6. Peer Review Evaluation

• Reviewers assess the manuscript based on its scientific quality, originality, clarity, and relevance to the journal's scope.

7. Editorial Decision

• Based on the reviewers' feedback, the editorial team makes a decision to accept, reject, or request revisions to the manuscript.

8. Author Revisions

• If revisions are requested, authors can revise their manuscript based on the feedback provided by the reviewers.

9. Re-review (if necessary)

• Revised manuscripts may undergo further review either by the original reviewers or new reviewers.

10. Final Editorial Decision

• The editorial team makes a final decision regarding the acceptance of the manuscript, considering the revisions and reviewer feedback.

11. Publication

• Accepted manuscripts are scheduled for publication in the journal.

12. Anonymity Preserved

• Throughout the process, the anonymity of both authors and reviewers is maintained.

13. Author Notification

• Authors are notified of the editorial decision, including any required revisions, for manuscript acceptance.

14. Ethical Considerations

• The journal adheres to strict ethical standards to ensure the integrity and validity of the peer review process, ensuring transparency and fairness.