General Guidelines and Standards for the Evaluation, Scoring, and Editorial Decision-Making of Manuscripts Submitted to the Shifa Scientific-Research Journal of Medical Sciences

Purpose of the Evaluation System

This guideline has been developed to establish a systematic, transparent, well-documented, and reasonably standardized framework for the evaluation of manuscripts submitted to the Shifa Scientific-Research Journal of Medical Sciences.

The primary objectives of this evaluation system are to:

• Assess the scientific and methodological quality of manuscripts according to predefined criteria;
• Reduce subjective and unsupported judgments during peer review;
• Establish a common evaluation standard among different reviewers;
• Require reviewers to provide a scientific justification for the score assigned to each section of the manuscript;
• Differentiate between minor, major, and critical (fundamental) deficiencies;
• Assist the Editor-in-Chief and the Editorial Board in making evidence-based editorial decisions;
• Determine whether a manuscript:
• is acceptable for publication;
• requires minor revisions;
• requires major revision; or
• is fundamentally unsuitable for publication.

Fundamental Principle of Manuscript Evaluation

A manuscript should be considered eligible for publication only if it satisfies two essential conditions simultaneously:

1. It achieves an acceptable overall evaluation score; and
2. It meets the minimum quality standards in all critical sections of the manuscript while being free from fundamental methodological flaws, serious ethical concerns, or scientific misconduct.

Accordingly, the overall score alone should never determine the editorial decision.

For example, a manuscript may receive excellent scores for its title, abstract, and writing quality; however, if the research methodology is fundamentally flawed, the manuscript should not be accepted merely because its average score is high.

Two-Stage Manuscript Evaluation

To improve the accuracy and consistency of peer review, every manuscript should undergo evaluation in two sequential stages.

Stage One: Assessment of Fundamental Eligibility

Before considering the detailed scoring of individual sections, reviewers should first determine whether the manuscript is fundamentally suitable for scientific evaluation and potential publication.

The reviewer should assess whether:

• the manuscript falls within the scope of medical sciences and the aims of the journal;
• a clearly defined scientific question, objective, or research problem exists;
• fundamental principles of research ethics have been respected;
• the reported data appear reliable;
• there is no credible evidence of plagiarism or scientific misconduct;
• the overall study design is appropriate for addressing the research objective; and
• sufficient information has been provided to permit a valid scientific evaluation.

If a fundamental deficiency is identified during this stage, the reviewer may recommend rejection of the manuscript regardless of its total score.

Stage Two: Detailed Evaluation and Scoring

During the second stage, the reviewer performs a comprehensive assessment of each predefined section of the manuscript.

For every evaluated section, the reviewer should:

• assign an appropriate score;
• provide a scientific justification for that score in the reviewer comments;
• classify identified problems as minor, major, or critical deficiencies; and
• recommend an editorial decision.

Principles Governing Peer Review

Reviewers must evaluate manuscripts solely on the basis of their scientific merit, and not on the basis of:

• the identity of the authors;
• the institutional affiliations of the authors;
• gender, ethnicity, nationality, or social status;
• whether the study findings are positive or negative;
• agreement or disagreement between the study findings and the reviewer's personal opinions;
• the number of authors; or
• the reputation of the authors.

Peer review should instead be based upon:

• originality;
• scientific significance;
• methodological rigor;
• validity of the findings; and
• quality of reporting.

These principles are consistent with internationally accepted standards for biomedical peer review and the reviewer responsibilities recommended by the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE).

 

Importance of Research Methodology in Manuscript Evaluation

Within biomedical research, the Methods section represents one of the most critical components of a scientific manuscript.

The reviewer should carefully determine whether the study methodology is genuinely capable of answering the stated research question or fulfilling the study objectives.

Consequently, a manuscript may address an important topic and present interesting findings; however, if the research methodology cannot adequately ensure the validity of those findings, the scientific value of the manuscript is substantially diminished.

For this reason, within the Shifa Journal scoring system:

• the Research Methodology section carries the greatest weight;
• the Data Analysis and Results section also receives substantial weighting; and
• both sections have separate minimum score requirements for acceptance.

 

Application of Study-Specific Evaluation Standards

Not all biomedical studies are identical.

Therefore, the evaluation criteria for:

• randomized clinical trials;
• cross-sectional studies;
• case reports;
• systematic reviews;
• qualitative studies; and
• diagnostic accuracy studies

should not be identical.

Accordingly, while the journal's evaluation form may maintain a common overall structure for all submissions, reviewers should interpret methodological quality and reporting standards according to the specific study design.

For example, internationally recognized reporting guidelines include:

• CONSORT for randomized controlled trials;
• STROBE for observational studies;
• PRISMA for systematic reviews;
• CARE for case reports;
• STARD for diagnostic accuracy studies;
• COREQ and SRQR for qualitative research; and
• ARRIVE for animal studies.

These reporting guidelines define the minimum information required for appropriate interpretation, critical appraisal, and, in many instances, reproducibility of research findings.

Recommended Policy for the Shifa Journal

Study-specific reporting guidelines should serve as supportive evaluation tools rather than substitutes for the scientific judgment of reviewers.

In other words, reviewers should not reject a manuscript merely because a single checklist item (for example, from STROBE) is absent.

Instead, reviewers should determine whether the omission is readily correctable or whether it genuinely compromises the scientific validity of the study.

 

General Scoring Scale

The maximum score assigned to a manuscript is 100 points.

The score allocated to each section reflects its relative importance to the overall scientific quality of the manuscript.

Reviewers should:

• assign scores according to the actual quality of each section;
• never assign scores without providing scientific justification; and
• clearly explain the rationale whenever particularly high or low scores are awarded.