IJNMT applies a peer-review process to evaluate the quality, originality, relevance, and scientific or technical contribution of submitted manuscripts. The review process aims to ensure that published articles meet appropriate academic standards and fall within the journal's scope.

Initial Editorial Screening

All submitted manuscripts are initially screened by the chief of editorial to assess their relevance to the journal's scope, compliance with the author guidelines, originality, and basic academic quality.
The chief of editorial may reject a manuscript without external review if it falls outside the journal's scope, does not meet the minimum requirements for scholarly publication, or raises significant concerns regarding originality or publication ethics.
Manuscripts may be returned to authors for technical corrections before proceeding to peer review.
The editor in chief will assign the manuscript that passed the initial screening to the editor to do further check list such as Turnitin check list, maximum number of abstract, relevancy of the references and etc. The editor can ask the revision to the author before assign the reviewers.

Peer Review Method

IJNMT uses a [double-blind/single-blind] peer-review process. Reviewers are selected based on their expertise and the relevance of their academic background to the subject of the manuscript.
Under a double-blind process, the identities of both authors and reviewers are concealed from each other during the review. Under a single-blind process, reviewers know the authors' identities, while reviewer identities remain confidential to the authors.
The applicable review method should be specified by the journal and implemented consistently.

Review Criteria

Reviewers are requested to evaluate manuscripts based on the following criteria:

• Relevance to the journal's scope.
• Originality and contribution to knowledge or engineering practice.
• Clarity of research objectives and problem formulation.
• Appropriateness of research methods, design, experiments, or numerical analysis.
• Validity of results, discussion, and interpretation.
• Quality of figures, tables, references, and technical presentation.
• Ethical compliance and the reliability of the reported research.

Reviewers provide constructive comments and a recommendation to assist the editor in making an informed decision.

Editorial Decisions

Based on the reviewers' comments and the editor's assessment, a manuscript may receive one of the following decisions:

• Accept Submission
• Revision Required
• Resubmit for review
• Resubmit Elsewhere
• Decline Submission

A revised manuscript may be returned to the original reviewers for further assessment when necessary. The final decision rests with the Editor.

Revision and Resubmission

Authors receiving a revision decision must submit a revised manuscript and a point-by-point response explaining how each reviewer comment has been addressed. If a comment is not adopted, the authors should provide a clear justification.
The editorial team may request further revisions if important concerns remain unresolved.

Reviewer Ethics and Confidentiality

Reviewers must treat manuscripts as confidential documents, assess them objectively, disclose potential conflicts of interest, and avoid using unpublished information for personal or professional advantage.
Reviewers must not delegate a review without the editor's permission. Any suspected research misconduct or ethical concern should be reported confidentially to the editor.

Review Duration

IJNMT aims to complete the editorial and peer-review process within approximately three months (12 weeks) from the date of manuscript submission. The timeline below represents the target duration for a standard submission and may vary depending on reviewer availability, manuscript complexity, and the number of revision rounds.

Appeals

Authors who wish to appeal an editorial decision may submit a reasoned written appeal to the editorial office. Appeals should address specific factual or procedural concerns and will be considered by the Editor-in-Chief or an appropriate independent editor.

Publication Ethics

The peer-review process is conducted in accordance with IJNMT's publication ethics policies and recognized principles of scholarly publishing. Editors and reviewers are expected to maintain fairness, confidentiality, and academic integrity throughout the process.