Editorial Policies

Focus and Scope

Kerala Medical Journal is the academic journal published by Indian Medical Association Kerala State Branch. The journal is published online and in print form and has 4 issues per year. Articles are selected in original research in clinical medicine, public health and clinical epidemiology and undergo a strict process of peer review before confirmation. Authors are to pay publishing charges on acceptance. The journal access is fully open online.

The following are the guiding principles of KMJ

  1. To promote and publish original research in all areas of modern medicine
  2. To create active discussions and initiate debates on topics of importance in health policy and health decision making
  3. To propagate safe, evidence based and ethical practice of modern medicine popularising guidelines for management.


Section Policies


Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Unchecked Peer Reviewed

Original Research

Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed

Public Health

Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed

Review Article

Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed

Case Report

Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed

Short Communication

Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed


Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed

Drug Profile

Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed


Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed


Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed


Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed

Continuing Medical Education

Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed


Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed

Peer Review Process

KMJ follows a closed peer review policy, in which the authors and reviewers are revealed to each others. All submitted manuscripts are screened for overall standards compliance before being forwarded to at least two peer reviewers. The Chief Editor is responsible for the final decision on acceptance or rejection of a manuscript.

Review Guidelines

Peer reviewers should always consider unpublished manuscripts send to them as confidential documents and should not discuss the matter even with colleagues. If you think that a colleague would be a more suitable reviewer for a particular manuscript, please let the editor know.

The Editor who has approached you may not know your work intimately, and may only be aware of your work in a broader context. Only accept an invitation if your area of expertise corresponds to the article in question.

Conflicts of Interest

A conflict of interest will not necessarily eliminate you from reviewing an article, but full disclosure to the editor will allow them to make an informed decision. For example; if you work in the same department or institute as one of the authors; if you have worked on a paper previously with an author; or you have a professional or financial connection to the article. These should all be declared when responding to the editor’s invitation for review.

General guidelines

Even though we provide article specific appraisal forms for reviewers to complete, detailed answering of the following questions will make a good review. Please give detailed and constructive comments that will both help the editors to make a decision and the authors to improve the article.

  1. Is the article relevant from a current medical knowledge point of view?
  2. Does the article add new knowledge to the field of medicine? If not does it add context or relevance to existing medical knowledge? Please describe how.
  3. Does the article read well and make sense? Does it have a clear message?
  4. Does the work appear to be original or does it appear like a copy of some existing literature. Provide relevant references.
  5. Is/are the research question(s)/objective(s) clearly defined and adequately answered?
  6. Is the design of the study appropriate and adequate to answer the research question(s)?
  7. Are the study subjects adequately described, their conditions defined, inclusion and exclusion criteria described?
  8. Was the study ethical, irrespective of ethics committee/IRB clearance?
  9. Is the sample size adequate? Is the sampling method relevant? Is the sample representative of the population which the study seeks to address?
  10. Are the methods adequately described? Is the main outcome measure clearly defined? Are the statistics adequate/appropriate?
  11. Do the results answer the research question/objectives? Are the results credible and well-presented using appropriate figures and tables?
  12. Are the results discussed in the light of relevant existing evidence?
  13. Do the interpretations and conclusions pertain to the objectives and are derived from the results?
  14. Are the references relevant and presented in the format recommended by the journal (Vancouver style)?
  15. Is the abstract and keywords in agreement with the full text of the study?
  16. Are only accepted abbreviations used in the article and are they adequately expanded?



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...


Plagiarism Policy

Plagiarism is a serious offence. It is not just professional misconduct, but may also bear legal implications in the lines of copyright violations and intellectual property theft. Though commonly an act of commission, plagiarism often results from authors inadvertently copying content without being aware of applicable guidelines. The following noteworthy tips, published in Perspectives in Clinical Research can be made use of when submitting articles to peer reviewed medical journals. We also recommend reading the entire article to gain thorough understanding of the issue of Plagiarism in Medical Publishing.


  • Ethical medical writers must always acknowledge the original source of the idea, text, or illustration.
  • They must remember to enclose within quotation marks, all the text that has been copied verbatim from another source.
  • When paraphrasing, they must read the text, understand completely, and then use only their own words.
  • Even when explaining somebody else’s ideas in their own words, it is important that they properly acknowledge the original source.
  • When not sure if the idea/fact they wish to include is common knowledge, a medical writer must cite references.
  • They must cite references accurately. The writer must read the instructions to authors to know what style they need to use. Biomedical journals commonly use the Vancouver style. Some textbook publishers prefer the Harvard referencing style. Insufficient and inaccurate acknowledgement can also amount to plagiarism.
  • A medical writer should avoid writing multiple separate articles if he can present a large complex study in a cohesive manner in a single article.
  • Along with the manuscript, he should submit a cover letter to the editor, clearly stating any instances of overlapping from previous publications and asking for advice.
  • Last, but not the least, if he feels he has unintentionally used somebody else’s ideas or text without appropriate referencing, he needs to write to the editor of the journal for advice. Confession is always better than to be caught stealing.”

*Das N, Panjabi M. Plagiarism: Why is it such a big issue for medical writers? Perspect Clin Res. 2011;2(2):67–71.