Plagiarism and Peer Review policy

Peer Review Policy

All manuscripts submitted to JMMC undergo double-blind peer review: the identities of authors and reviewers are concealed from each other throughout the process.

Process

  1. On submission, manuscripts are screened for plagiarism using Turnitin (see Plagiarism Policy).
  2. Manuscripts that pass screening undergo an initial editorial review to confirm fit with JMMC's scope and basic formatting requirements.
  3. Manuscripts are sent to at least two independent subject-matter reviewers for double-blind peer review.
  4. Reviewer feedback is communicated to authors, who respond point-by-point within a defined period.
  5. A final decision is made once reviewers are satisfied with the revised manuscript.

Manuscripts are accepted based on their significance, originality, and validity. Where an article is accepted, editorial revisions may be made to aid clarity, without altering its meaning.

This process is governed by a defined internal editorial Standard Operating Procedure, followed consistently for every submission.

All manuscripts are submitted and reviewed entirely through JMMC's Open Journal System — no physical copies are required.

Reviewers may not use AI-assisted technologies while conducting review, in order to protect the confidentiality of unpublished work.

Plagiarism Policy

JMMC screens every submitted manuscript for plagiarism using Turnitin.

A manuscript's overall similarity index must not exceed 19%, and similarity to any single source must not exceed 5%. Manuscripts exceeding this threshold are returned to the corresponding author for revision and re-screened before proceeding further.

What counts as plagiarism
This includes, but is not limited to: verbatim or near-verbatim copying of another author's work without citation; copying figures, equations, or data without attribution; and self-plagiarism, the substantial, uncredited reuse of an author's own previously published work.

JMMC does not tolerate plagiarism in any form. Confirmed instances may result in rejection, retraction, or referral to the author's institution, in line with COPE guidelines.