Peer Review Policy

1. Overview of the Peer Review Process

IJCMR follows a double-blind peer-review system, meaning:

• Authors do not know the reviewers’ identities
• Reviewers do not know the authors’ identities

This ensures fairness, objectivity, and impartial evaluation of all manuscripts.

The peer review process consists of the following steps:

1. Initial Submission Check
2. Plagiarism Screening
3. Assignment to Handling Editor
4. Reviewer Selection & Invitation
5. Double-Blind Peer Review
6. Editorial Decision
7. Revision Process (if applicable)
8. Final Decision & Acceptance

2. Initial Manuscript Screening

Upon submission, the manuscript undergoes an initial assessment by the Editor-in-Chief or a Handling Editor to ensure:

• Relevance to journal scope
• Compliance with author guidelines
• Basic scientific soundness
• Ethical and reporting standards

Manuscripts that do not meet these criteria may be desk rejected without external peer review.

3. Plagiarism Check

All submissions are screened using plagiarism detection software.

Manuscripts with:

• Similarity above acceptable limits
• Copied figures/tables
• Unattributed content

may be rejected or returned for correction.

4. Reviewer Selection

IJCMR selects qualified reviewers based on:

• Subject expertise
• Research experience
• Previous review quality
• Absence of conflicts of interest

A minimum of two independent reviewers evaluate each manuscript. In special cases, a third reviewer or statistical reviewer may be invited.

5. Peer Review Process

Reviewers evaluate manuscripts based on the following criteria:

Scientific Quality

• Originality and novelty
• Validity of research questions
• Soundness of methodology
• Quality of data and statistical analysis

Clarity & Presentation

• Logical structure of the article
• Clear interpretation of results
• Adequate references and literature support
• Language quality

Ethical Considerations

• Ethical approvals for human/animal studies
• Informed consent (where applicable)
• Transparency and research integrity

Contribution to the Field

• Relevance to clinical or medical practice
• Importance to the scientific community
• Potential impact on healthcare or research

Reviewers provide:

• Detailed comments
• Constructive feedback
• Recommendation: Accept / Minor Revision / Major Revision / Reject

6. Reviewer Responsibilities

• Provide objective, unbiased evaluations
• Complete reviews within the stipulated timeline (usually 2–4 weeks)
• Maintain confidentiality of all manuscript content
• Declare any conflicts of interest
• Avoid using manuscript information for personal gain

7. Editorial Decision

• Accept without revisions
• Minor revision required
• Major revision required
• Reject

8. Revision Process

• Authors must submit a revised manuscript
• Provide a point-by-point response to reviewer comments
• Highlight or track all changes

9. Final Acceptance

Accepted manuscripts proceed to copyediting, typesetting, and publication.

10. Confidentiality & Ethics

• Manuscripts are treated as confidential documents
• Peer review comments are not published or shared publicly

11. Conflict of Interest Policy

• Financial interests
• Personal relationships
• Academic competition
• Any competing interest that may influence judgment

12. Appeals & Complaints

Authors may appeal decisions in case of factual error, incorrect assumptions, or bias.

13. Reviewer Recognition

• Reviewer Certificates
• Annual Recognition Awards (if applicable)
• Editorial Board Invitations