Peer Review Policy

Scope of peer review

Global Medical Reviews (GMR) publishes Systematic Reviews, Meta-Analyses, Evidence Maps, Narrative Reviews and State-of-the-Art Reviews. All scholarly article types are subject to external peer review.

• At least two external and independent reviewers are required before an acceptance decision.
• Reviewer-facing material is limited to the anonymized manuscript and relevant anonymized supplementary files. The identifying title page, author names, affiliations, ORCID iDs, correspondence details, CRediT statements, acknowledgments and administrative author forms are withheld from reviewers.

Double-blind model

GMR uses double-blind peer review: reviewers are not told the identities of the authors, and authors are not told the identities of reviewers. The handling editor and authorized editorial staff retain access to author and reviewer identities only as required to administer the process, assess conflicts and maintain the editorial record.

• Authors submit a separate identifying title page and an anonymized main manuscript. Reviewer-facing supplementary files must also be anonymized.
• Authors must remove names, affiliations, ORCID iDs, email addresses, acknowledgments and identifying document properties, comments and tracked-change metadata from files intended for review.
• The secure reviewer portal does not expose the title page, cover letter, authorship/licence form or conflict-of-interest form.
• Reviewer reports are transmitted to authors without reviewer names and are not routinely published or signed.
• Reviewers must not attempt to identify authors. If an author identity becomes apparent or is reasonably inferred, the reviewer must disclose any resulting conflict to the editor before continuing.

Blinding limitations and conflicts

Double blinding reduces avoidable identity cues but cannot guarantee complete anonymity in small specialties, registered protocols, preprints, distinctive datasets or self-citations. Accidental recognition does not by itself invalidate a review. The reviewer must disclose the circumstance and any actual, potential or perceived conflict, and the editor decides whether the assignment should continue.

Editorial assessment and reviewer selection

• The Editorial Office performs a technical check, verifies reviewer-file anonymization and completes Antiplagiat similarity screening before external review.
• A handling editor assesses scope, reporting completeness, protocol information, conflicts and basic methodological suitability.
• Reviewers are selected for relevant expertise, independence, availability and workload.
• Reviewers must disclose financial, collaborative, supervisory, institutional, personal and other conflicts before accepting.
• Editors may seek a third review when reports materially conflict or specialist expertise is missing.

Decision authority

Reviewer recommendations are advisory. The handling editor evaluates the manuscript, all reports, author responses and journal policies. The Editor-in-Chief may review disputed, high-risk or integrity-related cases. Acceptance cannot be issued until the minimum independent-review requirement is met.

Exact exceptions

The following non-scholarly record-maintenance items do not undergo the ordinary two-reviewer process: Correction, Retraction, Expression of Concern, Publisher Notice, Editorial Notice and administrative journal announcements. They receive appropriate editorial and, where needed, legal or research-integrity review. Letters to the Editor receive editorial assessment and may be externally reviewed when they contain substantial methodological analysis, new calculations or allegations requiring specialist assessment.

Timelines and records

• The response and review due dates are stated in each individual reviewer invitation and secure portal.
• The journal records invitations, responses, reminders, extensions, reports, decisions, blinding confirmations and recusals in the secure editorial system.
• Authors are informed when unusual delay materially affects processing.