Peer-review process

Peer review (expert evaluation) of scientific manuscripts is conducted to maintain the high scientific and theoretical standards of the journal Pain Medicine and to select the most valuable and relevant scholarly works.

1. Type of Peer Review

The journal uses a double-blind (anonymous) peer review process:

  • the reviewers are not informed of the authors’ personal data;

  • the authors are not informed of the reviewers’ personal data.

2. Initial Manuscript Screening

All submitted manuscripts undergo an initial check for:

  • compliance with the formatting requirements specified on the journal’s website;

  • completeness of the submitted materials.

The initial expert assessment is carried out by the Editor-in-Chief or the Deputy Editor-in-Chief.

3. External Peer Review

External peer review is mandatory.

The journal has established a group of 18 external reviewers, who are experts in the relevant scientific fields and have publication experience in the area of research.

Members of the Editorial Board do not serve as external reviewers.

Number of reviewers per manuscript:

  • at least 2 external reviewers.

4. Final Decision

The final decision regarding:

  • acceptance of the article for publication,

  • the need for revision,

  • or rejection,

is made by the reviewers responsible for the final decision.
The Editorial Board does not interfere with the substantive part of their conclusions.

5. Review Timeline

The standard peer review period is up to 3 weeks from the moment the reviewers receive the manuscript.
This period is considered reasonable and sufficient to ensure high-quality peer review.

6. Reviewer Evaluation Criteria

Reviewers assess:

  • the relevance of the scientific problem;

  • the theoretical and practical significance of the research;

  • the correctness of mathematical calculations, figures, and graphs;

  • the consistency of the author’s conclusions with existing scientific concepts;

  • adherence to academic ethics;

  • accuracy and appropriateness of references;

  • the author’s personal contribution to solving the research problem;

  • clarity, logic, and accessibility of the presentation;

  • reliability and justification of the conclusions.

7. Possible Reviewer Decisions

After evaluation, the reviewer may recommend to the Editorial Office:

  • the article for publication without changes;

  • the article for publication after revision;

  • rejection of the article.

If revision or rejection is recommended, the reviewer must clearly state the grounds for this decision.

8. Re-Review

A manuscript may be sent for re-review in the following cases:

  • presence of controversial content;

  • insufficient quality of the initial review;

  • the reviewer declares insufficient expertise regarding the subject.

9. Submission of Reviews

The completed review is sent to the author by email.

Authors receive:

  • anonymized copies of the reviews,
    or

  • a reasoned rejection of publication.