Peer Review Process

Overview

All submitted abstracts are evaluated through a double-blind peer review process — meaning that neither the authors nor the reviewers are aware of each other’s identities.
This ensures impartiality and maintains the scientific credibility of the evaluation process.

1. Initial Screening

Each abstract is first reviewed by the Scientific Secretariat to verify compliance with formatting, ethical, and eligibility criteria. Abstracts that do not meet these basic requirements or lack required ethical approvals are excluded from further review.

2. Double-Blind Peer Review

    Eligible abstracts are assigned to at least two independent expert reviewers from different universities or research institutions.
    Reviewers evaluate each submission based on:

• Originality and innovation of the research

• Relevance to the congress themes

• Methodological rigor and clarity of objectives

• Validity and significance of results

• Contribution to the advancement of medical and health sciences

 Reviewers submit structured feedback and scores through the online evaluation system to ensure consistency and fairness.

3. Scientific Committee Assessment

The Scientific Committee examines reviewer comments and resolves any discrepancies between evaluations.
Abstracts meeting the minimum scientific threshold are shortlisted for acceptance, while those needing clarification may be returned to authors for revision.

4. Final Selection and Presentation Type

Based on the final assessment, abstracts are categorized as oral presentations, poster presentations, or rejected.
Only Original Research abstracts are considered for oral presentation.
The decision of the Scientific Committee is final.

5. Ethical and Integrity Checks

To ensure scientific integrity, all accepted abstracts undergo:

• Plagiarism detection using iThenticate.

• AI-generated content screening using Turnitin to verify originality

• Verification of Ethics and Clinical Trial Codes where applicable

6. Confidentiality

All reviewers and committee members adhere to strict confidentiality policies.

Abstracts and related materials are never shared, reproduced, or used for any purpose beyond peer review.

7. Notification of Results

Authors are notified of the final decision through the congress website and their personal user dashboard.
Constructive reviewer feedback is provided whenever possible to help authors improve future research and support continuous academic development.
  

    Note: The congress strictly follows international peer-review ethics and transparency standards in accordance with the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) and all relevant best practice guidelines.