In Discovery Medicine, peer-review is a double-blind assessment with at least two reviewers, followed by a final acceptance/rejection decision by the Editor-in-Chief, or another Editor (i.e., the Editor-in-Chief in the case of regular submissions, the Guest Editor(s) in the case of Special Issue submissions, or an Editorial Board member in the case of a conflict of interest and of regular submissions if the Editor-in-Chief allows) approved by the Editor-in-Chief. The Editor-in-Chief is responsible for the academic quality of the publication process, including acceptance decisions, approval of Guest Editor(s) and Special Issue topics, and appointing new Editorial Board members.

The Discovery Medicine editorial process

The following provides notes on each step.

1. Submission

The author will receive a tracking number (DM No.) following a submission.

2. Pre-Check

Once a manuscript is submitted for publication, the manuscript is checked by the Editorial Office, to ensure the files are complete and that the relevant metadata are in order.

Once this screening phase is complete manuscripts may then be pre-checked by an Editor. The Editor (i.e., the Editor-in-Chief in the case of regular submissions, the Guest Editor(s) in the case of Special Issue submissions, or an Editorial Board member in the case of a conflict of interest and of regular submissions if the Editor-in-Chief allows) will be notified of the submission and invited to perform an editorial pre-check. During the editorial pre-check phase, the Editor will assess the suitability of the submission to concerning  the scope of the journal, as well as the overall scientific soundness of the manuscript, including the relevance of the references and the correctness of the applied methodology. Editors can decide to reject the manuscript, request revisions before peer-review, or continue with the peer-review process and recommend suitable reviewers.

Guest Editor(s) of Special Issues are not able to make decisions regarding their manuscripts submitted to their Special Issue, as this would constitute a conflict of interest. An Editorial Board member will instead be responsible for decision-making. The Guest Editor(s) will be unable to access the review process except in their role as author. Similarly, Editors-in-Chief or other Editorial Board members are not able to access the review process of their manuscripts except is their role as authors.

3. Peer-Review

Peer-review is a double-blind assessment with at least two reviewers, followed by a final acceptance/rejection decision by the Editor-in-Chief, or another Editor approved by the Editor-in-Chief. The Editor-in-Chief is responsible for the academic quality of the publication process, including acceptance decisions, approval of Guest Editor(s) and Special Issue topics, and appointing new Editorial Board members.

For details, see the Peer review policy.

4. Revision

In cases where only minor or major revisions are recommended, Discovery Medicine staff will request that the author revise the paper before referring to the Editor. Where conflicting review reports are present, or where there are one or more recommendations for rejection, feedback from the Editor is sought before a decision about revisions is communicated to authors. Additional reviewers or further review reports may be requested by Editors at this stage.

Revised versions of manuscripts may or may not be sent to reviewers, depending on whether the reviewer requested to see the revised version. By default, reviewers who request major revisions will be sent the revised manuscript.

A maximum of two rounds of major revision per manuscript is normally provided. If more rounds are required according to the reviewers, Discovery Medicine staff request a decision from the Editor.

All reviewer comments should be responded to point-by-point. Where the authors disagree with a reviewer, they must provide a clear response or rebuttal.

5. Making a Decision

Based on  the basis of the submitted reports the Editor makes one of the following decisions:

• Reject
• Review after revision
• Accept after revision
• Accept

If the Editor decides to “Reject”, the authors are sent any review reports that have been received and are notified that their manuscript will no longer be considered for publication in the journal by the Editorial Office.

If the Editor decides to “Review after revision”, the authors are notified to prepare and submit an updated version of their manuscript with the necessary changes suggested by the reviewers by the Editorial Office. This might require new data to be collected or a substantial revision of the text. The manuscript is then reassessed by one or more of the original reviewers before the Editor makes a new recommendation.

If the Editor decides to “Accept after revision”, the authors are notified to prepare and submit a revised version of their manuscript with the necessary changes suggested by the reviewers and the required minor changes suggested by the Editorial Office. Once the Editor is satisfied with the final manuscript, optionally having sought further advice from one or more of the reviewers, the Editor can recommend “Accept in current form”.

If the Editor decides to “Accept”, the manuscript will undergo a final check by the Editorial Office to ensure that the manuscript and its review process adhere to the journal’s guidelines and policies. Once done, the authors will be notified of the manuscript’s acceptance.

6. Appeals and Complaints

Discovery Medicine adheres to COPE guidelines regarding appeals to editorial decisions and complaints. Where an author believes that an Editor has made an error in declining a paper, they may submit an appeal. The appeal letter should clearly state the reasons why the author considers the decision to be incorrect and provide detailed, specific responses to any comments relating to the rejection of the review. Further advice from members of the journal’s Editorial Board members and reviewers will be sought regarding eligibility for re-review.

Updated on 10 January 2023