The Annals of King Edward Medical University follows a double-blind peer review process to ensure fair, independent, and objective evaluation of submitted manuscripts.

1. Editorial Assessment

   All manuscripts undergo an initial technical and editorial screening. The Editor-in-Chief or a designated Associate Editor assesses the manuscript for:

   Relevance to the scope of the journal

   Originality and scientific or clinical importance

   Appropriateness of study design and methodology

   Ethical compliance

   Adequacy of reporting and presentation

   Suitability for external peer review

   Manuscripts that do not meet the journal's basic requirements or are outside its scope may be rejected without external peer review (desk rejection).

2. Double-Blind Peer Review

   Manuscripts considered suitable for review are evaluated by independent experts, normally under a double-blind system in which the identities of authors and reviewers are kept confidential.

   Reviewers assess, as applicable:

   Originality and significance of the work

   Scientific rationale and study design

   Methodology and appropriate use of statistical analysis

   Presentation and interpretation of results

   Potential sources of bias or confounding

   Strength and appropriateness of conclusions

   Ethical considerations

   Clarity, quality, and overall presentation of the manuscript

   Relevance to the journal's readership

   The Editorial Office may seek additional statistical, methodological, language, or specialist review when required.

3. Selection and Responsibilities of Reviewers

   Reviewers are selected according to their relevant academic expertise, professional experience, research or publication record, and subject knowledge. The journal seeks to maintain an appropriately diverse and up-to-date reviewer pool.

   Reviewers should:

   Provide an objective, constructive, and evidence-based assessment.

   Maintain strict confidentiality and not share or discuss the manuscript with others without editorial permission.

   Declare any actual or potential conflict of interest and decline the review where a conflict could compromise impartiality.

   Complete reviews within the agreed timeframe or promptly inform the Editorial Office if an extension is required.

   Avoid personal, discriminatory, or derogatory comments.

   Not attempt to identify or directly contact the authors during the review process.

   Provide clear comments and recommendations that assist the editors and authors in improving the manuscript.

4. Use of Artificial Intelligence by Reviewers

   Reviewers must maintain the confidentiality of manuscripts and must not upload manuscripts, manuscript text, figures, tables, or other confidential material to publicly accessible or third-party AI tools.

   AI tools should not be used to generate or substantially formulate peer-review comments, assess or interpret manuscript data, or make editorial recommendations. Reviewers remain fully responsible for the accuracy, integrity, confidentiality, and originality of their review.

5. Editorial Decision

   Reviewer recommendations are advisory. The final decision regarding acceptance, revision, or rejection rests with the Editor-in-Chief or designated editorial authority.

   Where appropriate, manuscripts may undergo more than one round of peer review following revision.

6. Confidentiality of Peer Review

   Peer review records and reviewer identities are kept confidential and are not publicly disclosed. Review information may be shared with relevant regulatory, indexing, accreditation, or evaluation bodies when required for legitimate journal evaluation or regulatory purposes.

7. Reviewer Recognition

   Reviewers are acknowledged for their contribution through a formal thank-you communication following completion of a review. Review certificates may be provided upon request.