The Journal of Radiography and Radiation Sciences operates a rigorous double-blind peer review system to ensure the publication of high-quality, ethical, and scientifically sound research in radiography, medical imaging, radiation therapy, medical physics, radiation protection, nuclear medicine, and related health sciences.

1. Manuscript Submission

Authors submit manuscripts electronically through the journal’s online submission system. Submitted manuscripts must comply with the journal’s author guidelines, ethical requirements, formatting standards, and scope.

All submissions must include:

• Title page
• Abstract and keywords
• Main manuscript
• References
• Ethical approval statement where applicable
• Conflict of interest declaration
• Author contribution statement

2. Initial Editorial Screening

Upon submission, the Editorial Office conducts a preliminary assessment to determine whether the manuscript:

• Fits within the aims and scope of the journal
• Meets formatting and submission requirements
• Demonstrates sufficient scientific quality
• Adheres to publication ethics and research integrity standards
• Contains no evidence of plagiarism or duplicate publication

Manuscripts may undergo plagiarism screening using similarity detection software.

Submissions that fail to meet the journal’s standards may be rejected without external review.

3. Assignment to Section Editor or Handling Editor

Suitable manuscripts are assigned to an Editor, Associate Editor, or Section Editor with expertise relevant to the manuscript’s subject area.

The assigned editor oversees the peer review process and communicates editorial decisions to the authors.

4. Double-Blind Peer Review

The journal employs a double-blind peer review process in which:

• Reviewers do not know the identity of the authors
• Authors do not know the identity of the reviewers

Typically, each manuscript is evaluated by at least two independent expert reviewers selected based on their academic qualifications, research expertise, and experience in the relevant specialty area.

Reviewers assess manuscripts based on:

• Originality and scientific contribution
• Relevance to radiography and radiation sciences
• Methodological rigor
• Ethical compliance
• Clarity of presentation
• Statistical validity where applicable
• Interpretation of findings
• Quality and relevance of references

5. Reviewer Recommendations

Reviewers provide detailed comments and recommend one of the following:

• Accept without revision
• Minor revision
• Major revision
• Reject

The editorial team considers all reviewer comments before making a decision.

6. Author Revisions

Where revisions are required, authors are asked to:

• Revise the manuscript accordingly
• Provide a detailed response letter addressing each reviewer comment
• Highlight all modifications made to the manuscript

Revised manuscripts may be returned to the original reviewers for further evaluation.

7. Final Editorial Decision

The Editor-in-Chief or assigned handling editor makes the final publication decision based on:

• Reviewer recommendations
• Scientific merit
• Ethical standards
• Editorial priorities

The final decision may be:

• Accept
• Accept with minor editorial corrections
• Request further revision
• Reject

8. Copyediting and Production

Accepted manuscripts undergo:

• Technical editing
• Language editing
• Reference verification
• Layout formatting
• Proof preparation

Authors review page proofs before final publication.

9. Publication

Accepted articles are published online in Open Access format and made freely accessible to readers worldwide.

Each published article receives:

• DOI assignment
• Metadata indexing
• Archiving and online accessibility

Ethical Standards

The journal adheres to internationally recognized publication ethics principles and expects all authors, reviewers, and editors to maintain high standards of integrity, transparency, confidentiality, and professionalism throughout the publication process.

Reviewers are required to:

• Declare conflicts of interest
• Maintain confidentiality
• Provide objective and constructive feedback
• Complete reviews within the stipulated timeline

Review Timeline

The journal aims to provide:

• Initial editorial assessment within 1–2 weeks
• Peer review decisions within 4–8 weeks
• Timely publication upon acceptance