About the Journal

Focus and Scope

Journal of Gandaki Medical College-Nepal (JGMC-N) is an official, open access, peer reviewed, biannual, biomedical, scientific Journal published and owned by Gandaki Medical College Teaching Hospital & Research Centre Pvt Ltd.

The JGMC-N publishes scientific articles related to research done in the field of biomedical sciences related to all the disciplines of the Medical Sciences, Public health, Medical education, Health care management, including ethical and social issues pertaining to health. The Journal will publish original articles, systematic reviews and meta-analyses, case reports, editorial articles, images, viewpoint, and letters to the editor.

Peer Review Process

The editors review all submitted manuscripts initially. Manuscripts with serious scientific and technical flaws, insufficient originality, or lack of a significant message are rejected. If good articles are written poorly then authors will be requested to revise and resubmit according to the JGMC-N format. Manuscripts are sent to two expert reviewers without revealing the identity of the contributors to the reviewers. Each manuscript is meticulously reviewed by the JGMC-N editorial board based on the comments from the reviewers and takes a final decision on the manuscript. The contributors will be informed about the reviewers’ comments and acceptance/rejection of the manuscript. Articles accepted would be copy edited for grammar, punctuation, print style, and format.

The Editor-in-Chief of JGMC-N reserves the right to accept or reject any article submitted for publication.

Reviewer Guidelines
The Journal of Gandaki Medical College-Nepal (JGMC-N) is a peer-reviewed journal. Peer review is a collaborative process that allows manuscripts submitted to a journal to be evaluated and commented upon by independent experts within the same field of research. Upon receipt, manuscripts are assessed for their suitability for publication by the Editorial Committee. Only the manuscripts that meet the journal format and general criteria are sent for review.

Conducting the Review
Reviewing needs to be conducted confidentially, the articles that have been sent for review should not be disclosed to a third party. In general, a single manuscript is reviewed by two anonymous reviewers. The reviewer should consider the following things:

  • Originality of the work
  • Importance of the research to researchers in the field
  • Interest for researchers or practitioners outside the field
  • Appropriateness of the approach and experimental design
  • Adequacy of experimental techniques
  • Soundness of conclusions and interpretations
  • Relevance of discussion
  • Clarity of presentation and organization of the article
  • Conducted according to the highest ethical standards
  • English composition

The reviewer should focus on below questions in each section:


  • Does the title clearly represent the main theme and contents of the manuscript?
  • Does it contain the major key words used in the manuscript?


  • Does it represent the concise form of the complete manuscript?
  • Does the author(s) indicate what the objective of the study is, what is being researched, how it was carried on and what are the main findings, conclusions and implications?


  • Does it accurately describe what the author main objectives to achieve?
  • Are you satisfied with the problems being investigated? Is the statement of the problems briefed satisfactorily?
  • Do the contents in this section referred relevant, up to date and most recent research works published in referred journals to justify the context of research?


  • Does the author mention satisfactorily how the data/ information was collected?
  • Does the author apply universally known methods to address the problems? Are there citations?
  • Does the materials and methods replicable by other scientists of the same field?


  • Does the author clearly give the range of main and sub-main parameters minimum, maximum and mean values?
  • Are the statistics correct? Does the author mention P-values in parenthesis after using the term significant?
  • Are results laid out in a logical sequence?
  • Does the author describe the results based on Tables, Figures, Photographs etc. used in the manuscript sequentially?


  • Does the author give clear cut results what has been discovered?
  • Does the author provide adequate comments/ arguments and support in support of findings?
  • Are you satisfied with the comments/arguments made? Do the comments/arguments seem reasonable?
  • Are the new findings articulated with the objectives and results?
  • Are the recommendations based on the findings? What are the implications of the findings?
  • Are the graphs clear and within the size? Units used in Y and X axis satisfactorily?
  • If necessary can the author supply raw data to the reviewers?


  • Are the references cited properly and follows all instructions comply with J-GMC-N guidelines?

Language and format

  • Does the article follow JGMC-N format accurately?
  • Is the article readable and communicative in terms of language and style?

Ethics / Originality /Relevance

  • Whether the article is a substantial copy of another work?
  • Whether the article contains ideas and language without properly crediting the sources?
  • Does the author(s) accept the conditions to keep the used data at least for three years safe after the publication?
  • Do you have any financial conflict with the authors of the manuscript?

The reviewer should make a recommendation regarding an article as follows:

  • Rejected due to poor quality, or out of scope
  • Accept without revision
  • Accept but needs revision (either major or minor)

In the latter case, clearly identify what revision is required, and indicate to Editor-in-Chief whether or not you would be happy to review the revised articles.

Publication Frequency

The journal is published biannually in June and December.

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.

Ethical Guidelines (Publication Ethics)

Our publication ethics and ethical guidelines are mainly based on the Code of Conduct and Best-Practice Guidelines for Journal Editors (Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). 2011, March 7. Code of conduct and best-practice guidelines for journal editors. Retrieved from https://publicationethics.org/files/Code%20of%20Conduct_2.pdf).

Responsibilities of Editors
The Editor-in-Chief is responsible for taking a decision on paper publication. The publishing decision is based on the recommendations of the journal’s reviewers. Current legal requirements regarding copyright infringement, and plagiarism should also be considered.

The Editor-in-Chief and Editorial Committee and editorial staff must not disclose any information about a submitted manuscript to anyone other than the corresponding author, reviewers, editorial advisors, and the publisher, as appropriate.

Unpublished materials disclosed in a submitted paper will not be used by the Editor-in-Chief and Editorial Committee members for their own research purposes without the author’s explicit written consent.

Editors should aim to ensure timely peer review and publication and should avoid unnecessary delays. Editors should consider how best to share information with corresponding authors about any delays that occur.

Editor-in-Chief and Editorial Committee members should not be involved in editorial decisions about their own scholarly work. If Editor-in-Chief and Editorial Committee members contribute his/her papers, these papers will be reviewed by those reviewers outside the journal team.

Responsibilities of Reviewers
The peer review process assists the Editor-in-Chief and Editorial Committee in taking editorial decisions and may also serve the author in improving the paper.

Any selected reviewer/referee who feels unqualified to review the research reported in a manuscript or knows that its prompt review will be impossible should notify the Editor-in-Chief and withdraw from the review process.

Any manuscripts received for review must be treated as confidential documents. They must not be disclosed to or discussed with others except as authorized by the Editor-in-Chief.

Reviews should be conducted objectively. Personal criticism of the author is inappropriate. Reviewers should express their views clearly with supporting comments.

Reviewers should identify cases in which relevant published work referred to in the paper has not been cited in the reference section. They should point out whether observations derived from other publications are accompanied by the respective source. Reviewers should notify the Editor-in-Chief of any substantial similarity or overlap between the manuscript under consideration and any other published paper of which they have personal knowledge.

Ideas or privileged information obtained through paper review must be kept confidential and not used for personal advantage. Reviewers should not consider manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any authors, companies, or institutions associated with the papers.

Responsibilities of Authors
Authors must furnish an ethical declaration of their role in research paper writing and submission to the journal office from the organization/institution where they are working.

A statement on contribution must be furnished that the paper is exclusively written and by the author/s and his/her team with most data used in the text, tables and figures were collected from own experiments/ or various published sources. The authors should declare that the data used in the manuscript will be kept intact until next three years. This data should be made available to anyone who desires to see them.

Author(s) are requested to declare the funding source if any, and briefly describe the role of sponsor(s), if any.

Author(s) should provide their given name(s) and family name(s). The affiliation addresses (where the actual work done) should be below the names. Authors should provide the complete postal address of each affiliation with country name and email address of each author and check that they are accurately spelled.

Author(s) of articles of original research should present an accurate account of the work performed as well as an objective discussion of its significance. Underlying data should be represented accurately in the paper. The article should contain sufficient detail and references to permit others to replicate the work. Fraudulent or making inaccurate statements knowingly constitute unethical behavior and are not acceptable. Reviews and other articles should also be accurate and objective, and must cite the work on which they are based.

Author(s) may be asked to provide raw data in connection with an article for editorial review and should be prepared to retain for a reasonable time after publication to provide public access to such data, if practicable.

Author(s) must ensure that the submitted work is original and has not been published elsewhere in any language, and if the author(s) have used the work and/or words/ statements of others that this has been appropriately cited or quoted. Applicable copyright laws and conventions must be followed. Plagiarism in any form, including the touting of material contained in another paper (of the same author or some other author) with cosmetic changes as a new paper; copying or paraphrasing substantial parts of another paper (without attribution), and claiming results from research conducted by others are among the numerous forms of plagiarism. Plagiarism, in all its forms, constitutes unethical publishing behavior and is not acceptable.

Author(s) should not publish manuscripts describing essentially the same research in more than one journal. Submitting the same manuscript to more than one journal concurrently constitutes unethical publishing behaviour and is not acceptable.

Acknowledgement of the work of others that have been influential in determining the nature of the submitted work must be given (cite the publications). Information obtained privately, as in conversation, correspondence, or discussion with third parties, must not be used or reported without explicit, written permission from the source.

Authorship should be limited to those who have made a significant contribution to the conception, design, execution, or interpretation of the research work. All those who have made significant contributions should be listed as co-authors. Where there are others who have participated in certain substantive aspects of the research project, they should be acknowledged or listed as contributors. The corresponding author should ensure that all appropriate co-authors and no inappropriate co-authors are included in the paper, and that all co-authors have seen and approved the final version of the paper and have agreed to its submission for publication.

Authors are expected to consider carefully the list and order of authors before submitting their manuscript and provide the definitive list of authors at the time of the original submission. Any addition, deletion or rearrangement of authors is not possible after the manuscript has been accepted for publication.

All authors should disclose in their manuscript any financial or other substantive conflict of interest that might be construed to influence the results or interpretation of their manuscript.

When an author discovers a significant error or inaccuracy in his/her own published work, it is the author’s obligation to promptly notify the Editor-in-Chief and cooperate to retract or correct the paper. If the Editor-in-Chief learns from a third party that a published work contains a significant error, it is the obligation of the author to promptly retract or correct the paper or provide evidence to the Editor-in-Chief of the correctness of the original paper.  


The statements or opinions or ideas expressed in the Journal are the personal views of authors and do not represent the official views of JGMC-N editorial board.


Please write to journal@gmc.edu.np for advertising opportunities. Acceptance of advertisement by Journal does not imply endorsement of products.