The Editorial Board of the Journal of Multidisciplinary and Translational Research (JMTR) consists of professionals from different academic disciplines who collaborate to manage the double-blind peer-review process and oversee the publication process. The Editor-in-Chief and the Editors for each discipline constitute the Editorial Board.

The primary responsibility of the Editor-in-Chief is to supervise the editorial and publication processes in collaboration with the Editors for each discipline. The duty of the Editors is to determine whether the submitted manuscripts are of high quality. Each manuscript submitted for publication in the JMTR will go through the editorial workflow during the peer-review process.

The editorial workflow and peer-review process are as follows.

The manuscript submitted to JMTR is directly sent to the Editor-in-Chief for the decision of acceptance for editorial review or rejection of the manuscript based on the quality of writing and adherence to the format guidelines. The Editor-in-Chief will first assess the similarity index of the manuscript before proceeding with the review process. If the submitted manuscript fails to fulfill the expected criteria of 20% or less similarity, it will be rejected or recommended for revision and resubmission. The editorial review takes one week for the first decision after submission.

If the manuscript fails the quality assessment, the authors will be notified within one week from submission that the manuscript is rejected without prejudice for resubmission after language and format editing.

The manuscripts that pass the screening for language and format is sent to the relevant editor, based on the discipline of the study. To maintain the integrity of the double-blind review process, the identities of the authors are kept confidential during the editorial assessment, where practicable. Using the Editor-Review Form, the Editor evaluates the manuscript's technical quality, scholarly merit, methodological soundness, and suitability for external peer review.

If the Editor determines that the manuscript is technically sound and suitable for peer review, the editor sends the completed Editor-Review Form along with the recommendation “Recommended for peer review” and a recommended list of reviewers to the Editor-in-Chief to proceed straight to peer review without revision.

If the Editor determines that the manuscript does not meet the required scholarly or technical standards to proceed to peer review, the completed Editor-Review Form is forwarded to the Editor-in-Chief with the recommendation “Recommended for rejection.” Following editorial assessment, the recommendation is considered by the Editor-in-Chief, who makes the final editorial decision. If the manuscript is rejected, the authors are notified accordingly.

If the editor determines that a manuscript needs revision before it is submitted for peer review, the editor submits the completed Editor-Review Form along with the manuscript with recommendations for revision and a recommendation, "Recommended for peer-review after minor revisions" or "Recommended for peer-review after major revisions." The author is informed to submit the revised manuscript after minor or major revisions. The author should submit the revised manuscript within the stipulated time limit for editorial review. If the revised manuscript meets the Editorial standards, the Editor sends the Editor-Review Form with the recommendation, "Recommended for peer review" along with the list of suggested reviewers who possess the necessary knowledge in the relevant area of study.

The manuscript, the Peer-Review Form, the Editorial Policy, the results of the spelling and grammar check, the plagiarism tests, guidelines for review and a letter of request are sent to the relevant reviewers. If two peer reviewers agree to review the manuscript within the stipulated period, the completed Peer-Review Form, reviewed manuscript, and a recommendation regarding one of the following actions, "Accept as is," "Reconsider after minor revisions," "Reconsider after major revisions," or "Reject: Manuscript is flawed or not sufficiently novel" will be sent to JMTR. The author(s) will be notified about the outcome of the review process under the sanction of the Editor-in-Chief.

If both peer reviewers suggest "Accept as is", the Editor-in-Chief approves the manuscript for publication. Where the peer reviewers recommend "Reconsider after minor revisions" or "Reconsider after major revisions," JMTR notifies the author(s) and furnishes the details of the specific revisions recommended by the reviewers and advises to submit a revised manuscript along with a point-by-point response to the reviewers’ comments within a stipulated time. The revised manuscript will be sent to the reviewers for scrutiny if the reviewers recommend review after major revisions. If the peer reviewer determines that the article is of good quality, following revisions, the new Peer-Review Form will be forwarded to JMTR with the recommendation to "Accept as is." JMTR will then notify the author(s) under the sanction of the Editor-in-Chief about the acceptance of the manuscript for publication.

If both peer reviewers recommend “Reject: Manuscript is flawed or not sufficiently novel,” the Editor-in-Chief considers their assessments and makes the final decision regarding rejection. The authors are then informed of the decision.

If one of the two peer reviewers recommends rejection while the other provides a different recommendation, the Editor-in-Chief, in consultation with the relevant Editor for the discipline concerned, may decide to reject the manuscript, request revisions, or appoint a third independent reviewer for further evaluation. The final editorial decision rests with the Editor-in-Chief.

The Editors for each discipline may recommend rejection of a manuscript at any stage of the editorial assessment if it fails to meet the journal's publication standards. Such recommendations may be based on inadequate technical quality, methodological weaknesses, unreliable results, insufficient originality, or other significant scholarly concerns. However, the final decision to accept, reject, or request revisions to a manuscript rests with the Editor-in-Chief. To guarantee an equitable peer-review procedure leading to a high-caliber publication, the Editor assigned to a particular article may not serve as an external reviewer of the manuscript.

The finalized manuscript goes through editorial processing before the edited version is published in the JMTR.