Peer Review Policy

Review model

Fight Medicine uses double-anonymous peer review. Authors do not know the reviewers' identities, and reviewers do not know the authors' identities. Authors submit an anonymised manuscript and a separate title page, as described in the Author Guidelines. Every published research article has been assessed by at least two independent reviewers who were not the authors and held no conflicting interest; editorials and commissioned commentary are editorially reviewed, and the review designation is stated on each article's record.

Reviewer selection

Reviewers are selected for demonstrable expertise in the subject under review, in clinical practice, officiating, regulation or research. Reviewers disclose conflicts before accepting, and a reviewer with an interest in the outcome is not used. Reviewers do not review work by close collaborators or by anyone with whom they share a current institutional, commission, promotional or commercial relationship. Reviewer identities are confidential and are disclosed to authors only with the reviewer's consent, after publication.

What reviewers assess

Clinical, officiating and regulatory accuracy, and whether recommendations are supportable in the environment described; the currency and adequacy of the evidence cited and the correct representation of sources; clear separation of established practice, emerging practice and author judgement; the safety of any procedure, dosage, threshold or improvisation, including risks and contraindications; adherence to ICMJE and COPE requirements for disclosure, ethics approval and consent; freedom from grievance or promotion; and practical utility for ringside clinicians, officials and regulators.

Process and timelines

Desk review is completed within seven days. The handling editor checks scope, ethics documentation, reporting-guideline adherence and anonymisation, and returns without external review any manuscript that fails these checks. At least two reviewers are then invited, with reports due twenty-one days after acceptance of the invitation. The handling editor issues one of four decisions, accept, minor revisions, major revisions or decline, in writing with reasons; decisions rest on the reviews and the editor's own assessment and are not a vote count. Authors respond to revisions point by point, and major revisions are returned to the original reviewers where possible. Revised material is checked against the review comments before acceptance.

Editorial independence

Manuscripts authored by an editor, a member of the editorial board or anyone affiliated with Sears Publishing Company are handled by an editor with no connection to the author, who controls reviewer selection and the decision. The author has no access to the submission's editorial record, and the arrangement is stated in the published article's declarations. Reviewers must not use material from a manuscript under review.

Appeals

Authors may appeal a decision in writing to the Editor-in-Chief within thirty days. Appeals are considered on the substance of the review, and an appeal that raises a substantive objection is referred to an editor and, where needed, a reviewer not involved in the original decision.

Reporting guidelines

Submissions follow the relevant EQUATOR Network reporting guideline (CONSORT, STROBE, PRISMA, SPIRIT, STARD, CARE, SQUIRE, SRQR or AGREE) and include the completed checklist as a supplementary file.

Review inquiries and reviewer volunteers: [email protected]. Policy adopted October 2026.