Peer Review Policy

The Uzbek Scientific Journal of Internal Diseases adheres to a robust peer review process that ensures the quality, validity, and integrity of published research. Peer review is essential for maintaining the credibility of scientific publishing and providing valuable feedback to authors. This policy outlines the journal's peer review process, the roles and responsibilities of peer reviewers, and the ethical standards expected in the review process.

Peer Review Policy

All research articles, and most other article types, published in the Uzbek Scientific Journal of Internal Diseases undergo peer review. Typically, each manuscript is reviewed by at least two independent, expert peer reviewers. The journal use double-blind peer review models.

  • Initial Review: Upon submission, the manuscript is first reviewed for completeness. It is then assessed by an Editor who determines whether the manuscript is suitable for peer review.
  • Editor Oversight: If the editor is listed as an author or has any competing interest regarding the manuscript, another Editorial Board member will oversee the review process.
  • Decision-Making: Editors consider the peer review reports in making their decision but are not bound by the opinions or recommendations therein. If concerns are raised by a reviewer or editor, the manuscript may be rejected. Authors will receive peer review reports alongside the editorial decision.

AI Use by Peer Reviewers

Peer reviewers are essential to the peer review process, offering expert evaluations to help editors make informed decisions about manuscript publication. The journal currently does not encourage peer reviewers to upload manuscripts into generative AI tools for review.

  • AI Limitations: Generative AI tools may lack up-to-date knowledge, potentially producing biased or inaccurate information. Given these limitations, manuscripts containing sensitive or proprietary data should not be processed by AI tools.
  • Declaration of AI Use: If a peer reviewer uses AI tools in their evaluation of a manuscript, they must transparently disclose this in their review report.

Peer Reviewer Selection

The selection of peer reviewers is critical to maintaining the quality of the peer review process. Editors select reviewers based on expertise, reputation, conflict of interest, and past performance.

  • Editor Responsibilities: Editors are expected to obtain at least two peer reviewers for manuscripts reporting primary research or secondary analyses. In exceptional cases (e.g., emerging fields), one peer review report may suffice if it meets the necessary standards. The decision to proceed with a single review rests with the Editor.
  • Reviewer Criteria: Reviews should be detailed, constructive, and based on the manuscript's methodology, results, and conclusions. Peer reviewers must assess whether the methods are appropriate, results are accurate, and conclusions are supported by the data.
  • Institutional Verification: Editors should independently verify the contact details of suggested reviewers, ensuring they are independent of the work. Institutional email addresses should be used whenever possible, and at least one reviewer should be selected who was not suggested by the authors.
  • Reviewers for Non-Primary Research: Articles such as Editorials, Book Reviews, and Commentaries may not require peer review. However, if the subject falls outside the editor’s area of expertise, independent experts will be consulted.

Peer Reviewer Diversity

The journal is committed to diversity, equity, and inclusion in the peer review process. Editors are strongly encouraged to consider diversity in geographical regions, gender identities, racial/ethnic groups, and other factors when selecting peer reviewers.

  • Inclusive Selection: Efforts should be made to ensure that the peer reviewer pool is diverse, contributing to the inclusivity of the academic community.

Peer Reviewer Misconduct

Peer reviewer misconduct, such as identity theft or suggesting fake peer reviewers, is taken seriously by the journal. Any fraudulent behavior will lead to the rejection of the manuscript and may prompt an investigation according to journal misconduct policy. In cases of misconduct, the authors' institutions may be notified.

  • COPE Membership: The journal is a member of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), and adheres to COPE's guidelines on peer reviewer misconduct.

Peer Review Models

Double-Anonymous Review: Manuscripts are assigned to at least two expert reviewers, maintaining anonymity on both sides to ensure an unbiased review process.

Peer Reviewer Guidance

The primary purpose of peer review is to provide editors with the necessary information to make fair, evidence-based decisions on manuscripts. Peer reviewers should evaluate the manuscript based on its alignment with the journal’s editorial criteria and help authors improve the quality of their work.

  • Confidential Comments: Peer reviewers may provide confidential comments to the editor, but these must not contradict the main points in the review for the authors.
  • Constructive Feedback: Reviews should be objective, with a clear rationale for the recommendation, especially if rejecting the manuscript. Reviewers should provide detailed feedback to help authors revise their manuscript for resubmission.
  • Confidentiality: Reviewers should respect the confidentiality of the manuscripts and not share unpublished manuscripts or use the information in their own work. Any concerns about confidentiality or ethical issues should be raised with the editor.
  • Guidance for Reviewers: Reviewers should:
    • Assess the validity of the key results and conclusions.
    • Evaluate the appropriateness of the methodology and data.
    • Ensure that statistical treatments and error bars are reported accurately.
    • Examine the clarity of the manuscript, including the abstract and conclusion.
    • Comment on the use of references and ensure proper citation.

Peer Reviewer Recognition

The journal acknowledges the invaluable contributions made by peer reviewers. As part of the appreciation program, Springer Nature offers peer reviewers the opportunity to credit their ORCID profile with verified peer review data transmitted directly from the submission system at the time of report submission.

  • Acknowledgment: Peer reviewers who contribute to the journal’s peer review process will receive recognition for their efforts, contributing to their academic career development.

ISSN 0000-0000 (Online)