Peer Review Policy

Radiology Essence Journal follows a structured peer review process to ensure the quality, originality, scientific validity and relevance of published manuscripts.

The journal aims to maintain an objective, fair and transparent review process while protecting the confidentiality of authors and reviewers.

1. Initial Editorial Assessment

All submitted manuscripts are first evaluated by the Editorial Office.

The initial assessment considers:

• Relevance to the aims and scope of the journal
• Originality and scientific value
• Basic methodological quality
• Ethical requirements
• Manuscript completeness
• Plagiarism or substantial text overlap
• Compliance with the Author Guidelines

Manuscripts that are outside the scope of the journal or do not meet basic submission requirements may be rejected at this stage without external peer review.

2. Peer Review

Manuscripts that pass the initial editorial assessment may be sent to independent reviewers with appropriate subject expertise.

Where appropriate, the journal will normally seek evaluation from at least two reviewers.

The reviewers may assess:

• Scientific validity
• Research methodology
• Data interpretation
• Originality
• Clarity and organization
• References and supporting evidence
• Ethical considerations
• Scientific significance

3. Review Model

The journal will normally use a double blind peer review process, where practical.

The identities of authors and reviewers will not be disclosed to each other during the review process.

However, complete anonymity may not always be possible, particularly for manuscripts containing identifiable information or where the research area is highly specialized.

4. Editorial Decision

Following peer review, the Editor in Chief or designated editor will make the final editorial decision.

Possible decisions include:

Accept

The manuscript is suitable for publication with no major changes.

Minor Revision

The manuscript requires limited corrections before publication.

Major Revision

Substantial changes are required and the revised manuscript may undergo further review.

Reject

The manuscript does not meet the journal's scientific, ethical, methodological or editorial requirements.

5. Revision

When revision is requested, authors should submit:

Revised Manuscript

and

Response to Reviewers

The response should clearly explain how each reviewer comment has been addressed.

Where a reviewer suggestion is not followed, the authors should provide a reasonable scientific explanation.

6. Reviewer Selection

Reviewers are selected according to their:

• Subject expertise
• Academic or professional experience
• Relevant research background
• Independence from the authors
• Absence of significant conflicts of interest

Reviewers should not be selected solely on the basis of personal relationships or institutional affiliation.

7. Reviewer Confidentiality

Reviewers should maintain the confidentiality of submitted manuscripts.

Reviewers must not:

• Share unpublished manuscripts with others without permission
• Use unpublished information for personal advantage
• Disclose their review comments publicly
• Contact authors directly about the manuscript unless authorized by the Editorial Office

8. Conflict of Interest

Reviewers must disclose any actual, potential or perceived conflict of interest.

A reviewer may be asked to decline the assignment if they:

• Have a personal or professional relationship with an author

• Have a competing research interest

• Are from the same institution as an author

• Have another circumstance that could compromise impartiality

9. Editorial Team Manuscripts

Members of the Editorial Team may submit manuscripts to the journal.

However, an editor must not participate in the editorial decision or peer review of their own manuscript.

Such manuscripts will be handled independently by another qualified editor and will undergo the same review standards applied to other submissions.

10. Reviewer Recommendations

Reviewer recommendations are advisory.

The final decision regarding publication rests with the responsible editor.

The Editor may request additional reviews when reviewer recommendations substantially differ or when further expert assessment is required.

11. Ethical and Research Concerns

If serious concerns arise regarding research ethics, plagiarism, fabricated data, manipulated images, duplicate publication or other forms of misconduct, the Editorial Office may investigate the matter and take appropriate action.

The journal may request clarification, supporting documentation or ethical approval information from the authors.

12. Appeals

Authors who believe that an editorial decision was based on a significant misunderstanding or procedural error may submit a reasoned appeal to the Editorial Office.

An appeal should address specific concerns rather than simply disagreeing with the reviewers' scientific opinion.

The editorial decision following an appeal will normally be considered final.

13. Publication Decision

Submission to Radiology Essence Journal does not guarantee acceptance or publication.

All manuscripts must satisfy the journal's scientific, ethical and editorial requirements before publication.

Radiology Essence Journal is committed to maintaining a fair, confidential and scientifically rigorous peer review process that supports the integrity of the scholarly record.