Peer Review Process

The International Journal of Assisted Reproduction and Fertility Sciences follows a structured peer review process intended to evaluate the quality, originality, scientific relevance, ethical standards, and overall suitability of submitted manuscripts. The journal publishes research related to assisted reproduction, fertility, infertility, reproductive medicine, reproductive health, embryology, and related scientific fields. The official journal platform provides manuscript submission and editorial information.

1. Manuscript Submission

Authors submit their manuscripts through the journal's online submission system.

At submission, authors should ensure that:

  • The manuscript is original.
  • The manuscript is not under consideration by another journal.
  • All authors have approved the submission.
  • Required ethical declarations are included.
  • The manuscript follows the Author Guidelines.
  • All relevant supporting files are provided.

2. Initial Editorial Screening

After submission, the manuscript undergoes an initial editorial assessment.

The editorial team may assess:

  • Scope and relevance to the journal.
  • Basic scientific quality.
  • Originality and suitability.
  • Manuscript completeness.
  • Ethical and publication requirements.
  • General presentation and clarity.

Manuscripts that do not meet basic requirements may be returned to the authors for correction or may not proceed to peer review.

3. Reviewer Selection

Manuscripts suitable for peer review may be assigned to qualified reviewers with relevant expertise.

Reviewers are selected based on their knowledge and experience in areas relevant to the submitted manuscript, such as:

  • Assisted reproductive technologies
  • Fertility and infertility
  • Reproductive medicine
  • Embryology
  • Reproductive biology
  • Reproductive endocrinology
  • Maternal and reproductive health
  • Related biomedical sciences

4. Scientific Evaluation

Reviewers may evaluate the manuscript based on:

  • Originality
  • Scientific significance
  • Research objectives
  • Methodological quality
  • Validity of results
  • Interpretation of findings
  • Quality of references
  • Clarity of presentation
  • Ethical compliance
  • Relevance to the journal's scope

5. Reviewer Reports

Reviewers provide comments and recommendations regarding the manuscript.

Reviewer feedback may identify:

  • Strengths of the research.
  • Methodological concerns.
  • Missing information.
  • Issues with interpretation.
  • Questions regarding data or results.
  • Required corrections or improvements.

Authors may be asked to respond to reviewer comments during the revision process.

6. Editorial Decision

Following editorial assessment and peer review, a manuscript may receive a decision such as:

  • Accept
  • Minor Revision
  • Major Revision
  • Reject

The decision is based on the overall scientific quality, originality, relevance, ethical standards, and reviewer and editorial evaluations.

7. Revision Process

When revisions are requested, authors should carefully address the comments provided by the reviewers and editors.

Authors should:

  • Revise the manuscript appropriately.
  • Clearly explain changes made.
  • Respond to reviewer comments where requested.
  • Provide additional information or analysis when justified.
  • Ensure that the revised manuscript remains accurate and consistent.

A revised manuscript may be subject to further editorial or peer review.

8. Confidentiality

Manuscripts submitted for review should be treated as confidential.

Reviewers should not:

  • Share manuscripts with unauthorized individuals.
  • Use unpublished information for personal or professional advantage.
  • Discuss confidential manuscript content outside the review process.

9. Conflict of Interest

Reviewers should disclose any potential conflict of interest that could affect their impartiality.

A reviewer should not participate in the evaluation when a personal, professional, financial, or other relationship could compromise objective assessment.

10. Research Ethics

Peer review may consider whether research has been conducted according to appropriate ethical standards.

For research involving human participants, clinical studies, reproductive materials, embryos, or other ethically sensitive areas, appropriate ethical approval and informed consent information should be provided where applicable.