Confidence in the research we publish depends on rigorous peer review, careful editorial judgement, and a shared commitment to accuracy, transparency, and integrity. At ODMJ, authors, reviewers, and editors work in partnership to strengthen manuscripts and to ensure that published findings are as reliable, clear, and clinically meaningful as possible.
Overview of our peer-review process
Peer review is a core safeguard for the scientific record. All submissions are first evaluated by ODMJ’s editors to determine whether the manuscript fits the journal’s scope and meets baseline standards for methodological soundness, ethical compliance, reporting completeness, and potential contribution to the field. Only manuscripts that pass this initial editorial assessment are sent for external peer review.
Selection of peer reviewers
When a manuscript is sent for external review, editors invite independent experts with relevant clinical, scientific, and methodological expertise. We aim to select reviewers whose perspectives are complementary, so the manuscript receives a thorough critique of its design, methods, analyses, interpretation, and clinical or scientific context. For original research, we typically include a statistical review, and when needed, we may seek additional specialist input (for example, from methodological experts or domain specialists).
Reviewer selection also considers independence and potential conflicts of interest. Editors may take into account author-suggested reviewers and reasonable requests to exclude specific individuals, while retaining full editorial discretion over final reviewer choice.
What reviewers are asked to provide
Reviewers are invited to provide constructive, evidence-based feedback that helps editors reach a decision and helps authors improve their work. Reviews typically address the validity and transparency of the methods and data, the appropriateness of analyses (including statistics where relevant), whether conclusions are supported by the results, and how clearly the work is presented. Reviewers may provide comments intended for authors, and confidential comments intended only for editors.
Editorial decisions and revisions
Editorial decisions are based on the strength of the scientific arguments and the overall quality of the work, not on “counting votes.” After considering reviewer reports, editors may decide that a manuscript should be declined, that revision is needed before further consideration, or that the manuscript can proceed toward acceptance after any required changes. When revisions are invited, authors are expected to respond to the comments carefully and transparently. Revised manuscripts may be returned to the original reviewers for follow-up evaluation, particularly when substantial issues were raised. Manuscripts can be declined at any stage. If a manuscript is declined after external peer review, ODMJ shares reviewer comments with authors whenever possible to support improvement and resubmission elsewhere.
Anonymity and confidentiality
ODMJ uses a double-blind model (identities of both the author and the reviewers are hidden from each other) to ensure an unbiased assessment, focusing solely on the manuscript’s merit, not the author’s reputation or affiliation. All materials and communications related to peer review are confidential. Reviewers must not share manuscripts, data, or reviewer correspondence outside the review process. If a reviewer wishes to seek targeted input from a colleague, this must be discussed with the handling editor in advance, and confidentiality must be maintained. Authors are expected to treat editorial correspondence and reviewer reports as confidential as well.
Conflicts of interest in peer review
Peer review must be impartial. Reviewers are asked to declare any financial, professional, or personal relationships that could reasonably be perceived to influence their assessment. If a meaningful conflict exists, reviewers should decline the invitation or consult the editor before proceeding. Editors assess declared conflicts and may replace reviewers where needed.
If a submitted manuscript is authored by an ODMJ editor, editorial-board member, or staff member, the individual has no access to the editorial record for that manuscript and is recused from all stages of assessment and decision-making. The paper is handled by an independent editor with full authority, and it undergoes the same peer-review standards as other submissions. Any conflicts and the steps taken to manage them are documented internally and, where relevant, disclosed in the published article.
Timeliness and efficiency
We value timely decisions for authors and an efficient process for reviewers. Reviewers are asked to submit reports within the agreed timeframe and to alert the editorial office promptly if they cannot meet the deadline, so we can keep authors informed and minimize delays.
Strengths and limits of peer review
Peer review strengthens the literature by helping to identify flaws, clarify uncertainties, improve reporting, and reduce over-interpretation. It is not a replication exercise and cannot, by itself, validate raw data or reproduce experiments. Peer review relies on professional judgement, transparent reporting, and trust—paired with editorial scrutiny before and after review—to protect the integrity of what is published.
Equity, diversity, and inclusion in peer review
ODMJ is committed to fairness and to broad representation in scholarly publishing. We work to build a diverse reviewer community across geography, career stage, and perspectives, and we encourage authors, when suggesting reviewers, to consider diversity in expertise and background. Our goal is to support balanced assessment and reduce bias in the evaluation of research.
Artificial Intelligence and AI-assisted tools in peer review
Peer review requires original expert judgement and confidentiality. Reviewers must not upload manuscripts, figures, supplementary files, or reviewer reports into generative AI tools or other external AI services, as this may breach confidentiality, proprietary rights, and data privacy. Reviewers should also not rely on AI tools to perform the scientific evaluation of a manuscript. Reviewers remain fully responsible for the content, accuracy, and integrity of their reports.
Standards and best-practice guidance
ODMJ aligns its peer-review expectations with widely accepted best practices for medical publishing, including guidance from the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) and the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). For reference, readers may consult the ICMJE recommendations and COPE’s ethical guidance for peer reviewers.
Learn more about ICMJE’s responsibilities in the submission and peer review process.