Review Process

The International Journal of Sexual Health, Fertility and Reproductive Medicine follows a structured peer-review process designed to ensure the quality, originality, scientific validity, and ethical integrity of published research. Manuscripts are evaluated by qualified reviewers with relevant expertise in sexual health, fertility, reproductive medicine, reproductive health, gynecology, obstetrics, reproductive endocrinology, assisted reproductive technologies, and related disciplines.

1. Manuscript Submission

Authors submit their manuscripts through the journal’s official submission system. The manuscript should follow the journal’s author guidelines and include all required information, declarations, references, figures, tables, ethical statements, and supporting materials.

2. Initial Editorial Screening

After submission, the editorial team conducts an initial assessment to check:

  • Relevance to the journal’s scope.

  • Originality and basic scientific and clinical quality.

  • Compliance with manuscript requirements.

  • Ethical considerations.

  • Plagiarism or inappropriate text reuse.

  • Completeness of required declarations.

  • Overall suitability for peer review.

Manuscripts that do not meet basic requirements may be returned to the authors for correction or may be declined before external review.

3. Reviewer Selection

Manuscripts considered suitable for review are assigned to qualified reviewers based on their subject expertise, research experience, and familiarity with the manuscript’s topic.

Reviewers are expected to provide an independent, objective, and constructive assessment.

4. Peer Review

Reviewers evaluate the manuscript according to factors such as:

  • Originality and significance.

  • Scientific and clinical quality.

  • Research methodology.

  • Clinical or experimental procedures, where applicable.

  • Accuracy and clarity of results.

  • Statistical analysis and interpretation.

  • Discussion and relevance of findings.

  • Relevance of conclusions.

  • Quality of references.

  • Ethical compliance.

  • Participant privacy and confidentiality, where applicable.

  • Presentation and overall readability.

Reviewers provide constructive comments and identify both major and minor issues that should be addressed.

5. Editorial Decision

Based on the reviewers’ assessments and the editorial evaluation, the manuscript may receive one of the following decisions:

  • Accept

  • Minor Revision

  • Major Revision

  • Reject

The final decision is made by the editorial team. Reviewer recommendations are considered carefully but do not automatically determine the final decision.

6. Revision

When revisions are requested, authors should respond to reviewer comments carefully and submit a revised manuscript together with a clear explanation of the changes made.

Authors should address:

  • Each reviewer comment.

  • Scientific, clinical, or methodological concerns.

  • Missing information.

  • Errors or inconsistencies.

  • Required references or clarifications.

  • Ethical or confidentiality-related concerns, where applicable.

7. Further Review

A revised manuscript may be returned to the reviewers for additional assessment when substantial changes are required. The editorial team may also evaluate the revised manuscript directly when appropriate.

8. Final Acceptance

Once the manuscript meets the journal’s scientific, editorial, clinical, and ethical requirements, the editorial team may issue a final acceptance decision.

Accepted manuscripts proceed to the journal’s publication and production stages.

9. Confidentiality

Manuscripts submitted for review are treated as confidential. Reviewers and editors should not disclose, distribute, or use unpublished information from a manuscript for personal or professional purposes.

Particular care should be taken with manuscripts containing patient information, sexual health data, fertility information, reproductive health records, genetic information, or other sensitive research information.

Reviewers should also avoid entering confidential manuscript content into publicly accessible artificial intelligence systems or other external services.

10. Conflict of Interest

Reviewers and editors must disclose any potential conflict of interest that could affect their impartiality. A reviewer may be replaced when a significant conflict is identified.