Peer Review Process

The Journal of Diabetes, Metabolism and Endocrinology follows a rigorous, transparent, and ethical double-blind peer-review process to ensure the scientific quality, originality, validity, and relevance of all manuscripts submitted for publication.

1. Initial Editorial Screening

All submitted manuscripts are first evaluated by the Editorial Office to determine whether they:

  • Fall within the journal’s aims and scope.
  • Meet the journal’s formatting and submission requirements.
  • Demonstrate sufficient originality and scientific relevance.
  • Comply with applicable research and publication ethics.
  • Have appropriate ethical approval and informed consent where required.
  • Contain complete declarations regarding conflicts of interest, funding, authorship, and other relevant matters.

Manuscripts that do not meet the journal's basic requirements may be returned to the authors for correction or rejected without external peer review.

2. Plagiarism and Research Integrity Screening

Manuscripts may be screened using appropriate plagiarism-detection and research-integrity tools before or during peer review. The journal reserves the right to investigate suspected plagiarism, duplicate publication, fabrication, falsification, image manipulation, inappropriate authorship, or other forms of research misconduct.

3. Double-Blind Peer Review

The journal uses a double-blind peer-review system, under which the identities of authors and reviewers are concealed from each other as far as reasonably possible.

Each manuscript considered suitable for external review is normally evaluated by at least two independent reviewers with relevant expertise. Reviewers assess the manuscript based on factors including:

  • Scientific originality and significance
  • Methodological rigor
  • Accuracy and validity of the results
  • Appropriateness of statistical analysis
  • Ethical compliance
  • Clarity and organization of presentation
  • Quality and adequacy of references
  • Relevance to the journal’s readership
  • Whether the conclusions are adequately supported by the findings

Reviewers provide recommendations and constructive comments to assist the Editor and authors in improving the manuscript.

4. Editorial Decision

The final publication decision is made by the Editor-in-Chief or an authorized member of the Editorial Board, taking into consideration the reviewers’ reports, the manuscript’s scientific quality, ethical compliance, and overall suitability for the journal.

Possible decisions include:

  • Accept
  • Minor Revision
  • Major Revision
  • Reject

The Editor is not required to follow a reviewer’s recommendation and may seek additional reviews where necessary.

5. Revision and Re-Review

When revisions are requested, authors should respond to reviewers’ comments carefully and provide a clear point-by-point response explaining how each issue has been addressed. Revised manuscripts may be returned to the original reviewers or evaluated by the Editor, depending on the extent of the revisions.

6. Reviewer Confidentiality and Conflicts of Interest

Reviewers must maintain strict confidentiality regarding all manuscripts and information received during the review process. Reviewers are expected to declare any potential conflict of interest and should decline the assignment when their relationship with the authors, institution, research, or funding could compromise impartiality.

Reviewers must not use unpublished information obtained through peer review for personal advantage or disclose manuscript content to others without authorization from the Editor.

7. Editorial Independence

Editorial decisions are based on the scientific quality, originality, ethical standards, and relevance of a manuscript and are not influenced by the authors’ nationality, institutional affiliation, gender, academic position, or commercial interests.

8. Ethical Standards and International Guidance

The journal is committed to internationally recognized standards of publication ethics and follows relevant guidance from the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and applicable recommendations of the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE).

COPE principles are used to guide the journal in handling matters including suspected research misconduct, plagiarism, duplicate publication, authorship disputes, conflicts of interest, corrections, retractions, and complaints.

ICMJE recommendations are considered in areas relevant to medical and biomedical publishing, including authorship and contributorship, conflicts of interest, ethical research conduct, clinical trials, reporting standards, and publication responsibilities.

9. Appeals and Complaints

Authors may appeal an editorial decision when they believe that a significant factual error, procedural irregularity, or misunderstanding materially affected the decision. Appeals must provide a clear and substantive justification. Appeals are considered by the Editorial Office and, where appropriate, by an independent editor or additional reviewer.

Complaints concerning editorial conduct or publication ethics are handled according to applicable COPE guidance and the journal’s Complaints and Appeals Policy.

10. Final Responsibility

The peer-review process supports editorial decision-making but does not guarantee acceptance or publication. The Editor-in-Chief retains final responsibility for editorial decisions, while maintaining the principles of fairness, confidentiality, academic integrity, and editorial independence.