Editorial Process

P-ISSN: 3117-8065 | E-ISSN: 3117-8073
Editorial & Peer Review Workflow Overview

The ICME Journal of Laboratory Medicine follows a rigorous, transparent, and structured editorial workflow designed to safeguard research integrity, scientific quality, confidentiality, and ethical publishing. Every submission undergoes an impartial editorial assessment informed by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) Core Practices, the recommendations of the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE), and the transparency principles reflected in the Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ) criteria.

1. Formal Manuscript Submission

Authors submit manuscripts through the official journal portal and confirm that:

The work is original and is not under consideration by another journal.
All listed authors satisfy the applicable ICMJE authorship criteria and have approved the submission.
Separate title-page and anonymized main-manuscript files have been uploaded.
Research ethics committee or institutional review board approvals and conflict-of-interest disclosures are provided where applicable.
2. Initial Editorial Screening

The Editor-in-Chief or a designated editor conducts a preliminary assessment of:

Alignment with ICME Journal of Laboratory Medicine's aims and scope and the manuscript's scientific or clinical relevance.
Compliance with the relevant EQUATOR Network reporting guidelines, including CONSORT, STARD, PRISMA, and CARE.
Adherence to the journal's formatting requirements and instructions for authors.
Provision and verification of clinical trial registration details where applicable.
3. Similarity & Plagiarism Screening

Submissions undergo similarity screening using appropriate detection software, such as iThenticate or Turnitin. Similarity reports are interpreted by the editorial team and are not used as the sole basis for a decision. Manuscripts containing suspected plagiarism, inappropriate text recycling, duplicate publication, or other integrity concerns may be returned to the authors, rejected, or investigated in accordance with the journal's policies and relevant COPE guidance.

4. Double-Blind Peer Review

Manuscripts that pass the initial assessment are normally assigned to at least two independent reviewers with relevant subject expertise. The identities of authors and reviewers are concealed from one another to the extent reasonably possible. Reviews are conducted confidentially, objectively, and free from inappropriate influence.

5. Peer Review Evaluation & Editorial Recommendations
Core Review Evaluation Criteria:
Originality, scientific significance, and contribution to medical or laboratory science knowledge.
Methodological rigor, appropriateness of study design, statistical analysis, and validity of conclusions.
Clarity of presentation, ethical compliance, and accuracy/completeness of references.
Possible Editorial Decisions:
Accept Without Revision Minor Revisions Required Major Revisions Required Reject with Invitation to Resubmit Reject
6. Author Revision & Final Decision

Authors submitting a revised manuscript must provide a detailed, point-by-point response explaining how each reviewer and editor comment has been addressed. The Editor-in-Chief or handling editor evaluates the revision and may return it to the reviewers when further expert assessment is required before issuing the final editorial decision.

7. Copyediting, Typesetting & Proofs

Accepted articles undergo copyediting, technical formatting, JATS XML preparation, and PDF proof production. The corresponding author reviews the galley proofs and communicates essential corrections before the article is approved for publication.

8. Immediate Gold Open Access Publication

Following final production approval, the article is published online as freely accessible open access content with the following features, where applicable:

Author ORCID iDs
CC BY 4.0 Open License
No Author APC (₹0.00)
Publication Ethics & Editorial Disclaimer

The ICME Journal of Laboratory Medicine is committed to ethical publishing practices informed by the COPE Core Practices and to maintaining editorial independence, fairness, confidentiality, and transparency throughout the editorial and peer-review process.

Disclaimer: Peer review and editorial quality-control procedures are intended to assess the scientific quality and integrity of submitted work. Authors remain responsible for the accuracy, authenticity, and reliability of their data, analyses, conclusions, and expressed opinions.

8-Stage Editorial Workflow Flowchart
STEP 1
Submission

Portal submission, ethics approval & conflict-of-interest disclosure

STEP 2
Desk Screening

Scope assessment & reporting-guideline review

STEP 3
Similarity Screening

Similarity assessment & editorial verification

STEP 4
Peer Review

Double-blind review by at least two subject experts

STEP 5
Recommendation

Reviewer recommendations & editorial assessment

STEP 6
Author Revision

Point-by-point response & final editorial decision

STEP 7
Production

Copyediting, JATS XML & publication proofs

STEP 8
Publication

Immediate Gold Open Access publication

Ready to Submit? Please consult our Author Guidelines before submitting your manuscript through the official online portal.