Peer Review Policy

PEER REVIEW POLICY
Peer Review Policy
 
1. Principles of Peer Review

The Da Nang Journal of Medicine and Pharmacy (DJMP) conducts scientific peer review to support the quality, accuracy, novelty, scientific value, research ethics, and integrity of published articles.

Manuscripts subject to peer review are evaluated by at least two independent reviewers with relevant expertise who are not directly involved in the editorial handling of the manuscript.

Reviewer comments provide important scientific advice to the Editorial Board. Completion of peer review does not guarantee acceptance for publication. The final decision is made under the authority of the Editor-in-Chief of DJMP.

DOUBLE-BLIND PEER REVIEW
DJMP applies a double-blind peer-review model in which the identities of authors and reviewers are not disclosed to each other during the review process.
2. Peer Review Model
• Reviewers are not provided with the identities or identifying information of the authors;
• Authors are not provided with the identities of reviewers;
• Reviewers must not disclose their identities to authors during the review process;
• Review reports and manuscript-related communications are managed through the Journal’s system.

Authors are responsible for preparing an anonymized main manuscript in accordance with DJMP requirements and for providing author-identifying information in a separate file where required.

3. Selection of Reviewers

Reviewers are selected on the basis of:

• Expertise relevant to the manuscript topic and research methodology;
• Relevant research, professional, or publication experience;
• Ability to provide an objective and independent assessment;
• Absence of conflicts of interest that could compromise objectivity.

The selection and invitation of reviewers are the responsibility of the Journal. Where DJMP permits authors to suggest or request the exclusion of reviewers, such suggestions are advisory only.

4. Independence and Conflicts of Interest

Reviewers must notify the Journal of any personal, professional, academic, financial, or other relationship or interest that could affect the objectivity of the review.

Reviewers should decline an invitation when they:

• Lack sufficient expertise to evaluate the manuscript;
• Cannot complete the review within an appropriate timeframe;
• Have a significant conflict of interest;
• Have collaborative, competitive, or other relationships that may compromise the independence of their assessment.
5. Confidentiality in Peer Review

A manuscript under review is considered confidential material.

• Reviewers must not share the manuscript or review content without permission from the Journal;
• Unpublished data, results, methods, or ideas must not be used for personal or third-party benefit;
• Reviewers must not contact authors directly regarding the manuscript without Journal permission;
• All files and information received during review must be kept confidential.
6. Scope of Reviewer Evaluation

Reviewers are asked to provide an objective and scientifically reasoned assessment focusing on:

• Relevance to the aims and scope of DJMP;
• Novelty and scientific significance;
• Research question and objectives;
• Study design and methodology;
• Sample size and sampling methods;
• Statistical analysis;
• Results and presentation of data;
• Discussion and interpretation of findings;
• Conclusions;
• Tables, figures, and references;
• Research ethics and scientific integrity;
• Overall manuscript quality.

Comments should be clear, constructive, and supported by scientific reasoning. Abusive, personally attacking, or discriminatory comments are not acceptable.

7. Reviewer Recommendations
Accept: The manuscript meets the requirements and may be considered for acceptance.
Minor Revision: The manuscript requires limited revisions that do not fundamentally alter the study design, methodology, or principal conclusions.
Major Revision: The manuscript requires substantial revision and may need to undergo further peer review.
Reject: The manuscript has limitations or concerns that make it unsuitable for publication in DJMP.

Reviewer recommendations do not constitute the final publication decision.

8. Handling Divergent Reviewer Opinions

Where reviewers provide substantially different assessments or recommendations, the editor does not make a decision solely on the number of favorable or unfavorable recommendations.

• Evaluate the scientific basis of each review;
• Request clarification from reviewers;
• Invite an additional independent reviewer;
• Request further revision or explanation from the authors;
• Undertake additional expert assessment where necessary.
9. Revision and Re-review

When revision is requested, authors must respond to each reviewer comment and clearly identify the changes made. Authors are encouraged to use DJMP-AF07 – Response to Reviewers.

For major revisions, the revised manuscript may be returned to the original reviewers or sent to other reviewers. Completion of requested revisions does not automatically result in acceptance.

10. Final Editorial Decision

Reviewers provide expert advice; responsibility for the publication decision rests with the Journal.

• Scientific quality of the manuscript;
• Reviewer comments and scientific reasoning;
• The extent to which authors have addressed revision requirements;
• Relevance to the aims and scope of DJMP;
• Research ethics and scientific integrity;
• The Journal’s editorial policies.
11. Ethical Concerns Identified During Peer Review

If reviewers identify concerns relating to:

• Plagiarism or substantial duplication;
• Fabrication or falsification of data;
• Possible manipulation of images or data;
• Duplicate publication;
• Copyright infringement;
• Research ethics concerns;
• Undisclosed conflicts of interest;
• Other matters affecting scientific integrity.

Reviewers should report such concerns confidentially to the Journal and should not independently investigate the matter or contact the authors directly.

12. Use of Artificial Intelligence in Peer Review

Because unpublished manuscripts are confidential, reviewers must not upload manuscripts, manuscript content, data, or other confidential materials to generative AI systems not authorized by DJMP.

Reviewers remain personally responsible for the content and accuracy of their peer-review reports. Further requirements are set out in DJMP’s Artificial Intelligence (AI) Policy.

13. Reviewer Policy

Reviewers participating in the peer-review process of the Da Nang Journal of Medicine and Pharmacy (DJMP) are assured of academic independence in their professional assessment, confidentiality of information, and recognition of their academic contributions to the Journal.

DJMP encourages researchers and experts to join the Scientific Reviewer Network. Reviewer benefits, principles of participation, forms of recognition, and other information for reviewers are provided in the DJMP Reviewer Policy.

View Reviewer Policy  →
↑ Back to top