This journal follows a double-blind peer review process. The papers are generally peer-reviewed by two independent academic experts. The peer review process takes place before publication and is facilitated by the journal.

The editors mediate all interactions between reviewers and authors. The journal owns the reviews and is not published. The Editor-in-Chief is responsible for the academic quality of the publication process, including final acceptance decisions, approval of Guest Editors and special issue topics, and new Editorial Board members.

Ethics

Reviewers are expected to observe the Ethics Policy of Dubai Med J and are encouraged to read and observe the COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers.

All reviewers are expected to inform the journal of any conflicts of interest or misconduct present in the paper or process of reviewing.

Manuscripts must be treated as confidential documents. The confidentiality of participants in the review process must be protected.

Reviewers should destroy or return manuscripts after reviewing them and refrain from using any information obtained from the manuscript for personal gain.

Assignment of Reviewers

The Editor-in-Chief will assign the manuscript to one of the Editorial Board members, who will send the manuscript to at least two expert reviewers. The reviewers will view an abstract of the manuscript to decide if they will accept to review the manuscript based on the following criteria:

• Reviewers should possess expertise in the subject matter of the manuscript and a strong background in scientific research.
• They have no conflicts of interest with the manuscript.
• They have the time to complete the peer review report within 2 weeks

If the reviewers agree with the above conditions, then they will be assigned to review the manuscript.

Reviewer Suggestions

Authors can suggest two potential reviewers with the appropriate expertise to review the manuscript. The editors will not necessarily approach these referees. Please provide detailed contact information (address, homepage, phone, e-mail address).

The proposed referees should neither be current collaborators of the co-authors nor have published with any of the co-authors of the manuscript within the last five years. Proposed reviewers should be from different institutions to the authors. You may identify appropriate Editorial Board members of the journal as potential reviewers.

Peer Reviewer Reports
Reviewers should evaluate the manuscript's significance, originality, methodology, results, and conclusion. Comments should be specific, constructive, and clear. Reviewers should provide feedback that assists authors in improving their work. Reviewers should identify any ethical concerns or potential ethical violations and report them to the editor.

The reviewers will submit their reports on the manuscripts within 2 weeks of accepting to review, along with their recommendation of one of the following actions to the Editor:

• Accept submission: submission of the manuscript is recommended as it is.
• Minor changes required: the manuscript requires minor revisions.
• Major changes required: the manuscript requires major revisions.
• Decline submission: rejection of the manuscript is recommended; the reason(s) for rejection must be stated.

Editor-in-Chief’s Decision

The Editor-in-Chief will make the final decision based on the Editor’s and reviewers’ recommendations.

Authors’ Responses

Based on the Editor-in-Chief’s decision, the authors have one of four options:

• If the article is accepted, the authors will receive further instructions after copyediting
• If the article requires revision, the authors will have four weeks to submit the required revisions
• If the article is declined, the authors will need to submit it to another journal.

Authors’ Appeal

Authors have the right to appeal any editorial decision. This can be done in the following order:

• Submitting an appeal request to the Editor-in-Chief, quoting the manuscript number and indicating the rationale for their dispute.

Authors may appeal if they feel that the decision to reject was based on one or more of the following elements:

• a conflict of interest by the reviewers, associate editors, or Editor-in-Chief.
• a major misunderstanding over a technical aspect of the manuscript.
• a failure to understand the scientific advances shown in the manuscript.

Appeals requesting a second opinion without sufficient justification will not be considered. Appeals will only be considered from the original submitting author/corresponding author.