1. Manuscript Submission

The corresponding or submitting author submits the paper to the journal's online platform, providing essential information, including author details, and a cover letter outlining the manuscript's significance. The submission is checked by editor for compliance with formatting guidelines and ethical standards.

2. Editorial Review

The editorial team conducts a preliminary review to evaluate the manuscript's alignment with the journal's scope and focus. During this stage, the editorial office assesses the originality of the work using plagiarism detection software. Manuscripts that do not meet the necessary criteria may be desk-rejected.

3. Reviewer Identification

For manuscripts that pass the initial review, the editor identifies suitable three reviewers based on their expertise and familiarity with the subject matter. The identities of the reviewers are concealed from the authors, while reviewers have access to the authors' information.

4. Invitation to Review

The selected reviewers receive an invitation via email, which includes a brief overview of the manuscript and a request for their evaluation. They are given a deadline to confirm their availability and complete the review.

5. Review Assignment

Upon accepting the review invitation, the reviewers are provided access to the manuscript through the journal's online system. They are tasked with assessing various aspects of the manuscript, including the validity of the research question, methodological rigor, data interpretation, and overall contribution to the field.

6. Reviewer Feedback

Reviewers submit their evaluations, including a recommendation regarding the manuscript's publication status (e.g., accept, minor revisions, major revisions, or reject). They are encouraged to provide constructive comments that authors can use to improve their work. The review feedback is submitted electronically, ensuring a clear record of the review process.

7. Editorial Decision-Making

Based on the reviewers' input, the editor formulates a decision regarding the manuscript. The potential outcomes include acceptance, conditional acceptance with required revisions, or rejection. The editor's decision is guided by the quality of the reviewers' feedback and the overall merit of the manuscript.

8. Communication of Decision

The editor communicates the decision to the authors through the journal's platform, including the reviewers' comments and suggestions (without revealing the reviewers' identities). Authors are informed of any required revisions and the rationale behind the decision.

9. Revision and Resubmission

If revisions are requested, authors revise their manuscripts in accordance with the feedback received. They resubmit the revised manuscript along with a detailed response letter addressing each comment and explaining the changes made.

10. Follow-up Review (if necessary)

The revised manuscript is sent back to the original reviewers or may be assigned to new reviewers, depending on the extent of the revisions. Reviewers evaluate how well the authors have addressed their concerns and whether the manuscript now meets the publication standards.

11. Final Decision

The editor makes a final decision based on the revised manuscript and the reviewers' assessments. This decision is communicated to the authors, and if accepted, the manuscript moves forward in the publication process.

12. Publication Preparation

Accepted manuscripts undergo final editorial checks for formatting and consistency. They are then prepared for publication and made available to the public on the journal’s open access platform.

This peer review process emphasizes transparency, constructive feedback, and rigorous evaluation while maintaining reviewer confidentiality, ensuring the integrity and quality of the research published in Emerging Medical Science.