Editorial Policies

Journal of Gynecology and Clinical Obstetrics follows a rigorous, fair and transparent editorial workflow to ensure the publication of high-quality research. The journal adopts a double-blind peer-review system, where both the identities of authors and reviewers are kept confidential throughout the review process. Final publication decisions are made by the Editor-in-Chief or assigned editorial board members.

Stage 1: Submission and Initial Screening
All manuscripts undergo a preliminary evaluation before being sent for peer review. This stage is typically completed within 2 working days.

1. Acknowledgment of Submission
Authors receive a confirmation email upon submission along with a unique manuscript ID for tracking.

2. Scope and Formatting Check
The editorial office verifies that the manuscript:

• Falls within the journal’s scope 

• Follows author guidelines 

• Contains all required sections 

Manuscripts that do not meet these requirements may be rejected at this stage.

3. Anonymization Check
To maintain the integrity of the double-blind process:

• Author names, affiliations and identifying details must be removed 

• Self-referencing should be written in a neutral manner 

Manuscripts that fail to meet anonymization standards may be returned for correction.

4. Plagiarism Screening
All submissions are checked using plagiarism detection tools. Manuscripts exceeding acceptable similarity thresholds may be rejected or returned for revision.

5. Ethical Compliance Verification
Authors must provide:

• Conflict of Interest statement 

• Ethical approval (if applicable) 

• Data availability statement 

• Author contribution details 

• AI usage disclosure (if applicable) 

Stage 2: Editorial Assignment
This stage is completed within 2-3 working days.

6. Handling Editor Assignment
The Editor-in-Chief assigns the manuscript to a handling editor with subject expertise.

7. Reviewer Selection
The handling editor selects at least 2–3 independent reviewers based on expertise and ensures no conflicts of interest. Reviewer identities remain confidential.

Stage 3: Double-Blind Peer Review

8. Review Process
Under the double-blind system:

• Reviewers do not know the authors’ identities 

• Authors do not know the reviewers’ identities 

Reviewers evaluate manuscripts based on:

• Originality and significance 

• Scientific rigor and methodology 

• Clarity of presentation 

• Ethical standards 

• Relevance to the journal 

9. Reviewer Recommendations
Reviewers provide one of the following decisions:

• Accept 

• Minor Revision 

• Major Revision 

• Reject 

10. Conflict Resolution
If reviewer opinions differ significantly, the editor may:

• Assign an additional reviewer or 

• Make a decision based on editorial judgment 

Reviewers are expected to submit reports within 7 days.

Stage 4: Editorial Decision
Authors are typically notified within 2 days of submission.

Decision Outcomes

• Accept – Manuscript is approved 

• Minor Revision – Small changes required 

• Major Revision – Significant improvements needed 

• Reject – Manuscript does not meet standards 

Revision Policy

• Authors must submit a detailed response to reviewer comments 

• Revised manuscripts should highlight all changes 

• Usually, up to two rounds of revision are permitted 

Stage 5: Production and Publication

11. Acceptance Notification
Authors receive an official acceptance letter.

12. Copyediting and Formatting
The manuscript undergoes professional editing and typesetting.

13. Proof Correction
Authors review proofs and respond within 48 hours. Only minor corrections are allowed.

14. Online Publication
Accepted articles are published online with a DOI (Digital Object Identifier) for permanent access.

15. Indexing and Archiving
Articles are indexed in relevant databases and archived for long-term preservation.

Stage 6: Appeals Process
Authors may appeal editorial decisions under justified circumstances.

Grounds for Appeal

• Reviewer bias or conflict of interest 

• Errors in evaluation 

• Procedural issues 

Appeal Procedure

• Submit appeal within 21 days 

• Independent reassessment may be conducted 

• Final decision is communicated within 21 days 

Timeline Overview

 

Key Highlights

• Double-blind peer review ensuring impartial evaluation 

• Strict ethical and plagiarism checks 

• Structured and transparent editorial workflow 

• Efficient turnaround time 

• Global accessibility through online publication

 

Peer Review Process
Journal of Gynecology and Clinical Obstetrics uses a double-blind peer review system to ensure fairness, quality and scientific integrity.

• All submissions first undergo editorial screening to assess relevance originality and compliance with guidelines.

• Suitable manuscripts are assigned to a subject editor.

• The editor invites at least two independent experts to review the manuscript.

• The identities of both authors and reviewers remain hidden throughout the process.

• Reviewers assess submissions based on originality, methodology, ethics, clarity and relevance.

• Based on reviewer feedback, the editor may decide to accept, request minor or major revisions or reject the manuscript.

• The final publication decision rests with the Editor-in-Chief or designated handling editor.

• Accepted papers undergo copyediting, proofreading and final author approval before publication.

Terms and Conditions

Original Work Requirement

• Submissions must be original and not published or under review elsewhere.

No Simultaneous Submission

• Manuscripts cannot be submitted to more than one journal at the same time.

Third-Party Permissions

• Authors must obtain written permission for any copyrighted material included in the manuscript.

Intellectual Property Assurance

• Authors confirm that their submission does not infringe on copyrights or other legal rights.

Disclosure of AI Tools

• Any use of artificial intelligence in writing, analysis or figure creation must be disclosed. AI systems cannot be credited as authors.

Corrections and Retractions

• The journal may issue corrections, expressions of concern or retractions if ethical or legal issues arise.

Author Responsibility

• Authors agree to hold the journal and editorial team harmless against legal claims related to published content.