Peer Review Policy

MyJO endorses the ICMJE’s Recommendations for peer review. Original articles, brief reports, case series, and case reports undergo peer review by at least two external reviewers. Letters to the editor and Eye-quiz do not undergo peer review but are subject to vetting and editing by journal editors.

MyJO employs a single-blind review process whereby the authors’ identities are disclosed to reviewers and the reviewers’ identities remain concealed to the authors. Reviewers are asked to disclose any competing interests regarding the submission prior to agreeing to review and are bound to confidentiality for the duration of the process. The entire review process is conducted through the MyJO website to ensure transparency and confidentiality in the handling of communications and files.

Review stages

Technical review

The submission (manuscript and accompanying files) is evaluated for compliance with author guidelines. Only submissions that are complete and comply with author guidelines shall be considered for the next stages of peer review. Submissions that do not comply with author guidelines will be returned to the authors for revision. If the revised submission does not comply with author guidelines after two rounds of technical revision, the submission will be declined. Authors have the option to resubmit, albeit as a new submission. MyJO therefore encourages authors to read the author guidelines thoroughly and structure their manuscript accordingly.

Editor decision

The manuscript is evaluated by the Chief and Deputy Editors for scientific merit and fit to the journal’s focus and scope. Submissions that clear this evaluation move on to the review stage. The Chief and Deputy Editors may also decline the submission at this point without sending to review if the article is found not suitable for the journal in terms of scope and scientific merit.

Review

Section editors select at least two reviewers who are experts in the manuscript’s topic. The review process is single-blind. Although reviewers are requested to submit their review within four weeks of accepting the invitation, MyJO cannot always guarantee reviews to be completed within this time frame.

Reviewers can only recommend a decision for a given manuscript; the final decision for acceptance or rejections rests with the Section Editor. When reviewers have conflicting recommendations for the same manuscript, the Section Editors and ultimately the Chief Editor will resolve these differences.

• First round: The reviewers evaluate the manuscript for overall scientific merit including appropriate research questions, study design, and methodology, robust results, and sound conclusions.
• Revision rounds: In these rounds, the revised manuscript is reviewed once again to check whether the authors have addressed all points raised in the prior round. If the revised manuscript is fit for publication, it is accepted. If the manuscript repeatedly fails to address all issues raised in review, it is declined.

When a manuscript is declined, the authors have the option to resubmit, albeit as a new submission.

Reviewer selection

MyJO reviewers are experts in specific fields of ophthalmology who are not part of the Editorial Board and undertake peer review without remuneration from the journal. Section Editors are in charge of selecting suitable reviewers for manuscripts according to fields of expertise.

Appeals

In cases where authors believe the review process has been unfair or biased, they may appeal the process by contacting the Section Editor, who will review the case with the Chief and Deputy Editors.