Editorial Policies

Focus and Scope

The LIMUJ is an international peer reviewed fully online medical journal aiming to publish research articles in basic, allied and clinical medical sciences. Our aim is to inform and stimulate doctors, researchers, and other health professionals in ways that will improve outcomes for patients. The journal doesn’t have article processing charges (APCs) or any submission charges.


Section Policies

Original Reserach Articles

Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed


Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed

Review article

Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed

Case reports

Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed

Brief Reports

Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed

Letter to the Editor

Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed

Peer Review Process

The practice of peer review is to ensure that only good science is published. Our reviewers play a vital role in maintaining the high standards of the LIMUJ. All manuscripts are peer reviewed following the procedure outlined below.

The cheif editor first evaluate all manuscripts. Manuscripts rejected at this stage either have serious scientific flaws or are outside the aims and scope of the journal.  Those that meet the minimum criteria are normally passed on to at least 2 experts for review. LIMUJ employs single blind reviewing, where the referee remains anonymous throughout the process. Reviewers are asked to evaluate the originality of the manuscript, its methodologly, ethical guidelines and weather the results are clearly presented and support the conclusions. The time required for the review process is dependent on the response of the reviewers. Should the referees’ reports contradict one another or a report is unnecessarily delayed, a further expert opinion will be sought. The Editors’ decision will be sent to the author with recommendations made by the referees, which usually includes verbatim comments by the referees. Revised manuscripts might be returned to the initial referees who may then request another revision of a manuscript.



Open Access Policy

This journal provides immediate open access to its content on the principle that making research freely available to the public supports a greater global exchange of knowledge.



This journal utilizes the LOCKSS system to create a distributed archiving system among participating libraries and permits those libraries to create permanent archives of the journal for purposes of preservation and restoration. More...


Reviewer guidlines

LIMUJ Board is grateful to the reviewers for taking time to review the submitted manuscripts to our journal. In general, we look to publish work which is scientifically consistent, valid and presented in an acceptable form. We don't specify originality of the submitted research article as long as it hasn’t been published entirely before. We do not reject article by the merit of weak English language, if the quality of English needs improving, the reviewers can recommend the manuscript be edited by an English language editor. The reviewers comments should apply one of four categories: major compulsory revisions, minor essential revisions, optional revisions and finally rejection.  

  1. Major compulsory revisions 

    Major compulsory revision means that the article suffers from many deficiencies related to the research design, the presentation of the results and/or their discussions. The authors are advised to re-write, re-organize, and re-submitt the corrected version of the manuscript. Furthermore, major revision means that the paper will have to undergo further review after revision, usually by the same referees.

  2. Minor essential revisions

    Minor revisions means that the structure of the article is scientifically satisfactory and the authors are asked for primarily formal corrections or re-wording before the manuscript can be accepted. Minor revision means that while changes should be made, no further reviewing is needed. 

  3. Optional revisions

    Optional revisions are recommendations for improvement of the manuscript which the author may choose to ignore.  

  4. Rejection

    Rejection is usually an editorial decision but if the reviewer provide a good evidence of scientific misconduct (as plagiarism), then his/her recommendation will be validated by the editor.  

    Accordingly, our reviewer advice will be one of the followings:

  • Accept without revision (the manuscript will be sent into production as is)
  • Accept with minor essential revisions.
  • Major compulsory revision requested.
  • Reject because scientifically or ethically unsound (e.g. plagiarisms).