Review Process Flowchart

CJMS employs a rigorous peer review system to ensure scientific validity. Most manuscripts undergo single-blind review (reviewers know authors, not vice versa) by at least two independent expert reviewers. For certain submissions (e.g. case reports or at author request), double-blind review (neither party knows the other) may be used.

Key features of our process:

• Initial Screening: Upon receipt, manuscripts are checked by editors for scope, originality, and compliance with guidelines (within ~3–5 days). Ineligible or out-of-scope papers are returned without full review.
• Reviewer Selection: Reviewers are chosen for subject-matter expertise, qualifications (typically PhD/MD), and no conflicts of interest. We maintain a diverse reviewer pool and encourage both senior and junior researchers to participate.
• Review Criteria: Reviewers evaluate manuscripts for originality, methodological rigor, clarity, and ethical compliance. They comment on strengths/weaknesses and make a recommendation (accept, revise, reject). Confidentiality is mandatory; reviewers must not disclose or use manuscript content.
• Timeliness: Reviewers are asked to submit reports within 2–4 weeks. Editors monitor progress and may send reminders or replace unresponsive reviewers.
• Editorial Decision: After reviewing reports, editors make the final decision and provide authors with clear, constructive feedback. Revisions are expected to address reviewers’ comments. If a manuscript is rejected, editors may suggest more suitable journals or allow re-submission only if substantial changes are made.

Appeals: Authors may appeal a rejection by writing to the Editor-in-Chief within 30 days, outlining specific reasons and new evidence. Appeals are reviewed impartially by a new editor or an editorial committee.