Peer Review Policy

Open Peer Review Model: Governing the Review of Manuscripts Submitted to ARD Publications

Document Type:  Editorial Policy

Issuing Body:  ARD Editorial Board, UPTH Chapter

Review Model:  Open Peer Review

Scope:  All manuscript categories submitted to ARD publications

Version:  1.0

Date of Adoption:  2026

Review Cycle:  Biennial (every two years) or as directed by the Editorial Board

Compliance:  Mandatory for all authors, reviewers, editors, and editorial board members

Preamble

The Association of Resident Doctors (ARD), UPTH Chapter, is committed to advancing the quality, rigour, and integrity of medical and clinical scholarship produced by resident doctors, trainees, and allied health professionals. The Editorial Board recognizes that peer review is the cornerstone of credible scientific publication and serves as the primary mechanism through which the quality, validity, and originality of submitted work is evaluated before dissemination.

This Peer Review Policy establishes the principles, procedures, standards, and responsibilities governing the review of all manuscripts submitted to ARD publications. It adopts an Open Peer Review (OPR) model, in which the identities of both authors and reviewers are known to each other throughout the review process. The ARD Editorial Board believes that transparency in review promotes accountability, constructive dialogue, and a culture of collegiality in academic discourse — values that are especially important in the formative years of a clinician-researcher's career.

This policy is binding on all authors, peer reviewers, section editors, and members of the Editorial Board. Adherence to this policy is a condition of participation in any ARD editorial process.

Section 1: Objectives of Peer Review

The peer review process pursued by the ARD Editorial Board shall:

• Ensure that published work meets established standards of scientific rigour, methodological soundness, and clinical relevance;

• Protect the integrity of the academic record by identifying errors, biases, or unsupported conclusions prior to publication;

• Provide constructive, actionable feedback to authors to strengthen the quality of their manuscripts;

• Identify and prevent the publication of plagiarised, duplicate, or ethically compromised research;

• Promote transparency and accountability in the review process through the open peer review model;

• Foster a culture of scholarly mentorship within the ARD community by engaging experienced clinicians and researchers as reviewers;

• Uphold the credibility and reputation of ARD publications as trusted resources for the medical community.

 

 

Section 2: Scope of APPLICATION 

This policy applies to all manuscripts submitted for publication under the auspices of the ARD Editorial Board, including but not limited to:

• Original research articles (clinical, observational, and experimental studies);

• Case reports and case series;

• Review articles (narrative and systematic reviews);

• Meta-analyses;

• Short communications and brief reports;

• Letters to the Editor (at the discretion of the Editor-in-Chief);

• Educational and opinion articles designated for peer review.

Editorials, news items, and invited commentaries from the Editorial Board are not subject to external peer review but remain subject to editorial review and board approval.

 

Section 3: Open Peer Review Model

3.1 Definition and Rationale

The ARD Editorial Board adopts an Open Peer Review (OPR) model. Under this model, the identities of both the author(s) and the reviewer(s) are disclosed to each other at the commencement of the review process. Review reports may also be published alongside accepted manuscripts at the discretion of the Editorial Board, subject to the consent of the reviewer.

The ARD Editorial Board adopts OPR for the following reasons:

• Transparency: Open identification encourages reviewers to produce thorough, well-reasoned, and professionally respectful critiques;

• Accountability: Reviewers are more likely to adhere to standards of fairness and constructiveness when their identity is known;

• Mentorship: OPR creates an opportunity for dialogue between authors and reviewers, fostering professional relationships within the resident doctor community;

• Integrity: Openness reduces the risk of malicious, perfunctory, or deliberately delayed reviews.

 

3.2 Consent and Opt-Out

All reviewers invited under this policy are informed of the OPR model prior to accepting the review assignment. By accepting the review invitation, the reviewer consents to the disclosure of their identity to the author(s).

Authors are similarly informed of the OPR model at the point of submission. Submission of a manuscript constitutes the author's acknowledgement and acceptance of this model.

In exceptional circumstances, a reviewer may request anonymity for legitimate professional reasons. Such requests shall be considered on a case-by-case basis by the Editor-in-Chief. Where anonymity is granted as an exception, this shall be noted in the editorial record but shall not be disclosed to the author.

 

3.3  Publication of Review Reports

Where the Editorial Board exercises discretion to publish review reports alongside accepted manuscripts, reviewers shall be given a minimum of fourteen (14) calendar days to review and approve the version of their report intended for publication. Reviewers may make minor corrections to their report for clarity but may not materially alter the substance of their review.

Section 4: Editorial Workflow

4.1 Submission and Initial Screening

Upon receipt of a manuscript, the Editorial Secretary or designated editorial staff shall:

1. Acknowledge receipt to the corresponding author within three (3) working days;

2. Conduct an initial administrative check to confirm that the submission meets the basic formatting, word count, and documentation requirements specified in the Author Guidelines;

3. Forward submissions that pass the initial check to the Editor-in-Chief for editorial pre-screening.

 

4.2 Editorial Pre-Screening

The Editor-in-Chief, in consultation with the relevant Section Editor, shall conduct a pre-screening review to assess:

• Alignment of the manuscript with the scope of ARD publications;

• Originality and absence of prior publication (including preprint status);

• Adequacy of the ethical framework (ethics approval, informed consent, data integrity);

• Minimum scientific and clinical merit warranting external peer review.

Manuscripts failing pre-screening may be rejected outright (with reasons communicated to the author) or returned for revision before formal review. The target for pre-screening completion is seven (7) working days from receipt.

 

4.3 Assignment of Reviewers

The Section Editor, guided by the Editor-in-Chief, shall identify and invite a minimum of two (2) peer reviewers per manuscript. Reviewer selection shall take into account:

• Subject matter expertise relevant to the manuscript's content;

• Absence of conflicts of interest with the author(s) (see Section 6);

• Current workload and availability of the prospective reviewer;

• Diversity of perspective (clinical, methodological, institutional).

 

Reviewer invitations shall include: (a) the manuscript title and abstract; (b) the reviewer's disclosed identity and the author's identity per the OPR model; (c) the expected review timeline; and (d) a link to the ARD Reviewer Guidelines and this Policy.

Reviewers shall respond to invitations within five (5) calendar days. Where a reviewer declines or does not respond, the Section Editor shall promptly identify an alternate.

 

4.4  Review Period

Peer reviewers are expected to submit their completed review within twenty-one (21) calendar days of accepting the assignment. One extension of up to fourteen (14) calendar days may be granted on request. Reviewers who have not submitted their review by the deadline without communication shall be replaced and the manuscript reassigned.

 

4.5  Editorial Decision

Following receipt of reviewer reports, the Section Editor shall prepare a consolidated recommendation for consideration by the Editor-in-Chief. The Editor-in-Chief shall make one of the following decisions:

Decision	Description
Accept	The manuscript is accepted for publication as submitted, with only minor typographical corrections required.
Minor Revision	The manuscript requires limited revisions. Authors are expected to resubmit within fourteen (14) calendar days.
Major Revision	The manuscript requires substantial revisions. Authors are expected to resubmit within thirty (30) calendar days with a detailed response to reviewer comments.
Reject with Invitation to Resubmit	The manuscript has fundamental issues but shows potential. Authors may resubmit a substantially revised version as a new submission.
Reject	The manuscript does not meet the standards required for publication and is not recommended for resubmission.

 

All decisions shall be communicated to the corresponding author in writing, accompanied by reviewer reports (with reviewer names disclosed per the OPR model) and, where applicable, a consolidated editorial comment.

4.6 Revised Manuscripts

Revised manuscripts shall be returned to the original reviewers wherever possible. Revised submissions must be accompanied by a point-by-point response letter addressing each reviewer comment. Where the author disagrees with a reviewer comment, a reasoned rebuttal is acceptable. The Section Editor retains discretion to accept the revision without re-review where revisions are minor and adequately addressed.

 

4.7  Appeals

Authors who wish to appeal an editorial decision may submit a formal written appeal to the Editor-in-Chief within fourteen (14) calendar days of receiving the decision. Appeals must be based on one of the following grounds:

• A material error of fact in the reviewer's assessment;

• Evidence of a conflict of interest undisclosed by the reviewer;

• A procedural irregularity in the review process.

Appeals are not considered a mechanism for rearguing the scientific merits of a rejected manuscript without new supporting evidence. The Editor-in-Chief's decision on appeal is final. Where the Editor-in-Chief has a direct interest in the appealed manuscript, the appeal shall be handled by a designated senior member of the Editorial Board.

 

Section 5: Reviewer Responsibilities and Standards

5.1  Criteria for Reviewers

Peer reviewers for ARD publications shall ordinarily meet the following criteria:

• Hold a recognised medical, clinical, or allied health qualification relevant to the manuscript's subject matter;

• Possess demonstrable expertise in the topic area (clinical, methodological, or both);

• Have no disqualifying conflict of interest with the author(s) or institution(s) (see Section 6);

• Be willing to conduct the review in a timely, thorough, and professional manner.

The Editorial Board may, in appropriate circumstances, invite senior resident doctors, fellows, or experienced clinicians at any career stage. Reviewers need not hold a faculty or consultant appointment, provided they have the requisite expertise.

 

5.2  Standards of Review

Each peer review shall:

• Be completed independently, without collaboration with others, unless explicitly authorised by the Section Editor;

• Evaluate the manuscript with respect to originality, scientific soundness, methodological rigour, clarity of presentation, and clinical relevance;

• Provide specific, evidence-based comments with sufficient detail to allow the author to understand the basis for each critique;

• Distinguish clearly between mandatory revisions (required for publication) and suggestions (optional improvements);

• Be professional, courteous, and constructive in tone — personal criticism of the author is not acceptable;

• Not recommend rejection without providing substantive justification.

 

5.3  Use of Artificial Intelligence Tools in Review

Reviewers must not use artificial intelligence (AI) language tools (including large language models) to generate, substantially draft, or extensively paraphrase any component of their peer review report. Reviewers are solely responsible for the intellectual content of their review. The use of AI tools for grammar checking or language polishing is permitted provided the intellectual substance of the review remains the reviewer's own work. Any use of AI assistance must be disclosed to the Editor-in-Chief.

 

5.4  Confidentiality of Manuscript Content

Notwithstanding the open peer review model — in which identities are disclosed — the content of manuscripts under review remains confidential. Reviewers must not share, circulate, discuss, cite, or use the unpublished content of any manuscript for any purpose other than conducting the review. This obligation continues after the review is completed and applies regardless of the ultimate publication status of the manuscript.

 

5.5  Timeliness

Reviewers are expected to:

• Respond to review invitations within five (5) calendar days;

• Submit completed reviews within twenty-one (21) calendar days of acceptance, or by any agreed extended deadline;

• Notify the Section Editor promptly if they are unable to complete the review within the agreed timeline.

Chronic failure to meet review deadlines or repeated non-responsiveness may result in removal from the ARD reviewer database.

 

Section 6: Conflicts of Interest

6.1 Definition

A conflict of interest (COI) exists when a reviewer has a financial, professional, personal, or institutional relationship with an author or with the subject matter of a manuscript that could — or could reasonably be perceived to — compromise the objectivity of the review.

 

6.2 Disqualifying Conflicts

A reviewer must decline a review assignment where they:

• Are a co-author, supervisor, or supervisee of any author named in the manuscript;

• Are a current or recent (within three years) close collaborator of any named author;

• Have a direct financial interest in the findings or conclusions of the manuscript;

• Have a close personal relationship (family, romantic, or strong friendship) with any named author;

• Have publicly stated a strong position; positive or negative  on the specific work or research group;

• Are employed at the same institution as the primary author, where the subject matter directly involves that institution.

 

6.3  Disclosure Obligation

All reviewers must disclose any actual or potential conflict of interest to the Section Editor at the point of receiving the review invitation and must do so proactively, without waiting to be asked. Where a reviewer is uncertain whether a relationship constitutes a conflict, they should disclose and seek guidance from the Section Editor.

The Editorial Board shall maintain a record of all disclosed conflicts and decisions taken in response to such disclosures.

 

6.4  Editor Conflicts

Where the Editor-in-Chief or a Section Editor has a personal, professional, or financial relationship with an author, they must recuse themselves from all editorial decisions relating to that manuscript. The Editor-in-Chief shall designate an alternate editor to manage the submission.

 

6.5  Author Disclosure

Authors must disclose, at the time of submission, any funding sources, institutional affiliations, or relationships that could give rise to a perception of bias. Authors may also identify specific individuals they wish to be excluded from reviewing their manuscript, with reasons, subject to editorial discretion.

 

Section 7: Research Ethics and Integrity

7.1  Ethics Approval

All original research involving human subjects, patient data, or animal subjects must have received prior ethics approval from a recognized institutional or national ethics committee. The manuscript must include: (a) the name of the approving ethics committee; (b) the ethics approval reference number; and (c) a statement confirming that informed consent was obtained from participants, where applicable.

Research conducted at UPTH should ordinarily have received ethics clearance from the UPTH Research and Ethics Committee or an equivalent body. Manuscripts submitted without evidence of appropriate ethics approval shall not proceed to peer review.

 

7.2 Plagiarism and Originality

All manuscripts shall be screened for plagiarism using a recognised plagiarism detection tool prior to peer review. A similarity index exceeding fifteen percent (15%) in aggregate, or any evidence of verbatim reproduction of another's work without attribution, shall be grounds for rejection. Self-plagiarism including the reproduction of substantial portions of the author's own previously published work without disclosure  is similarly prohibited.

Authors must confirm, at the time of submission, that:

• The manuscript is original and has not been previously published in any form;

• The manuscript is not under simultaneous consideration by another journal;

• All sources have been appropriately cited and attributed.

 

7.3  Data Integrity

Authors are required to retain primary data and research records for a minimum of five (5) years following publication and to make such data available to the Editorial Board upon request. Fabrication, falsification, or selective reporting of data constitutes research misconduct and will result in immediate rejection or retraction, as applicable.

 

7.4  Authorship Criteria

Authorship of manuscripts submitted to ARD publications shall comply with the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) criteria. All listed authors must have:

• Made substantial contributions to the conception, design, data acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of the work;

• Drafted or critically revised the manuscript for important intellectual content;

• Approved the final version for submission;

• Agreed to be accountable for all aspects of the work.

Individuals who contributed to the work but do not meet all four ICMJE criteria should be acknowledged in the Acknowledgements section. Honorary, gift, or ghost authorship is not permitted.

 

7.5  Duplicate and Redundant Publication

Authors must not submit work that has been previously published, in whole or in substantial part, in another peer-reviewed venue. Submission of a manuscript to ARD while it is simultaneously under review elsewhere is prohibited. Preprints posted on recognised servers (e.g., medRxiv) are permissible but must be disclosed at the point of submission.

 

Section 8: Timelines and Key Deadlines

Stage	Responsible Party	Target Timeframe
Acknowledgement of submission	Editorial Secretary	3 working days
Editorial pre-screening decision	Editor-in-Chief / Section Editor	7 working days
Reviewer invitation response	Invited Reviewer	5 calendar days
Submission of completed review	Peer Reviewer	21 calendar days
Review extension (if requested)	Section Editor (approval)	Up to 14 additional days
Editorial decision communicated to author	Editor-in-Chief	7 working days after receipt of reviews
Author resubmission — minor revision	Corresponding Author	14 calendar days
Author resubmission — major revision	Corresponding Author	30 calendar days
Final editorial decision on revision	Editor-in-Chief	14 working days
Appeal submission deadline	Corresponding Author	14 calendar days from decision
Appeal decision	Editor-in-Chief	21 calendar days from appeal

 

Section 9: Confidentiality and Data Protection

All parties involved in the editorial and peer review process — editors, reviewers, editorial staff, and board members — shall treat manuscript content, reviewer reports, editorial correspondence, and decision communications as confidential. This obligation applies at all stages and survives the conclusion of the review process.

Specifically:

• Manuscript content shall not be shared, reproduced, discussed, or cited outside the review process without the written consent of the corresponding author;

• Reviewer reports shall not be shared with third parties without editorial authorisation;

• Personal data collected during the submission and review process shall be handled in accordance with applicable data protection principles and used solely for editorial purposes;

• Editorial board deliberations and voting records shall remain internal to the Board.

Under the open peer review model, the disclosure of reviewer identity to the author is an explicit and consented feature of the model — and does not constitute a breach of confidentiality.

 

Section 10: Post-Publication Responsibilities

10.1  Corrections and Errata

Where a published article is found to contain a material error that does not affect the core findings or conclusions, the Editorial Board shall publish a formal Correction (erratum) noting the error and its correction. The corrected article shall be updated in all digital repositories where it appears.

 

10.2  Expressions of Concern

Where the Editorial Board receives credible information raising concerns about the integrity of a published article — including potential data problems, authorship disputes, or ethical irregularities — but a definitive determination has not yet been reached, an Expression of Concern may be published to alert readers.

 

10.3  Retraction

A published article may be retracted where the Editorial Board determines that:

• The findings are unreliable as a result of misconduct (fabrication, falsification, or plagiarism) or honest error;

• The research was conducted without appropriate ethics approval;

• The results have been published elsewhere without disclosure (duplicate publication);

• The authorship is so seriously disputed that it cannot be resolved in favour of publication.

Retractions shall be clearly identified in all digital versions of the article. The original article shall be retained in the record with the retraction notice overlaid. The decision to retract shall be made by the Editor-in-Chief in consultation with the full Editorial Board.

 

10.4 Responses and Letters

Post-publication letters and responses from the scientific community may be submitted to the Editorial Board. Such correspondence shall undergo editorial review and, where appropriate, brief peer review before publication.

 

Section 11: Roles and Responsibilities

Role	Key Responsibilities
Editor-in-Chief	Overall oversight of the peer review process; final editorial decisions; conflict management; policy compliance; appeals adjudication.
Section Editors	Reviewer identification and invitation; monitoring review progress; preparing editorial recommendations; managing revision rounds.
Peer Reviewers	Timely, thorough, independent, and constructive review of assigned manuscripts; disclosure of conflicts; adherence to this Policy.
Authors	Submission of original, ethical, and complete manuscripts; compliance with revision timelines; transparent disclosure of funding, ethics, and conflicts.
Editorial Secretary	Receipt and acknowledgement of submissions; administrative tracking; communication with authors and reviewers; maintenance of the editorial record.
Editorial Board Members	Governance oversight; ratification of major policy changes; support to the Editor-in-Chief in complex editorial decisions and appeals.

 

Section 12: Policy Review and Amendment

This policy shall be reviewed by the ARD Editorial Board at intervals not exceeding two (2) years from the date of adoption, or earlier where significant changes to publication standards, applicable regulations, or editorial practice warrant a review.

Proposed amendments shall be:

4. Submitted in writing to the Editor-in-Chief;

5. Circulated to all Editorial Board members for review and comment (minimum 14-day consultation period);

6. Adopted by a simple majority vote of the Editorial Board;

7. Dated and version-controlled upon adoption;

8. Published on all ARD communication platforms within 30 days of adoption.

Emergency amendments may be adopted by the Editor-in-Chief in consultation with at least two senior Editorial Board members where an urgent editorial situation requires immediate policy clarification, subject to ratification by the full Board at the next scheduled meeting.

 

Section 13: Sanctions and Enforcement

Violation of this policy — whether by an author, reviewer, editor, or editorial board member — may result in one or more of the following consequences, commensurate with the severity of the breach:

• Formal written warning;

• Withdrawal of a manuscript from the review process;

• Rejection or retraction of a published article;

• Suspension or permanent removal from the ARD reviewer database;

• Removal from the Editorial Board (where a board member is implicated);

• Referral to the offending party's institutional authority or professional regulatory body;

• Public notice to the scientific community where the integrity of the published record is affected.

Sanctions shall be applied following a fair and documented process. The affected party shall be informed of the allegation, given an opportunity to respond, and notified of the final decision in writing. The Editor-in-Chief shall maintain a confidential record of all enforcement actions.

Definitions

Term	Definition
Open Peer Review (OPR)	A peer review model in which the identities of authors and reviewers are known to each other throughout the review process.
Peer Review	The evaluation of a manuscript's scientific merit, methodology, and presentation by qualified experts prior to publication.
Conflict of Interest (COI)	Any financial, professional, personal, or institutional relationship that could compromise — or be perceived to compromise — the objectivity of a reviewer or editor.
Plagiarism	The use of another person's work, ideas, or expressions without proper attribution, presented as one's own.
Retraction	The formal withdrawal of a published article from the scientific record, typically due to serious error or misconduct.
ICMJE	International Committee of Medical Journal Editors — the body whose criteria define authorship standards for medical publications.
Preprint	A version of a manuscript posted on a public server before formal peer review and publication in a journal.
Expression of Concern	A notice published by the Editorial Board alerting readers to potential concerns about a published article that are under investigation.

 

Adoption and Authorisation

This policy has been reviewed, approved, and adopted by the ARD Editorial Board.

Position	Name / Signature / Date
Editor-in-Chief, ARD Publications	Name: ________________________ Signature: ____________________ Date: _________________________
Secretary, ARD Editorial Board	Name: ________________________ Signature: ____________________ Date: _________________________
President, ARD UPTH Chapter	Name: ________________________ Signature: ____________________ Date: _________________________

 

Peer Review Policy v1.0  |  2026  |  For Official Use