On this page you can find:
The summary of the review system at CJM
A detailed description of the peer-review process
How to apply to be a reviewer/editor in CJM
CJM adheres to a double-blind peer-review process that is rapid, fair, and ensures the high quality of published articles. CJM’s reviewers are required to declare their conflicts of interest and maintain the confidentiality of the manuscripts they review. As CJM is a rapid response journal, we try to reach a goal of 8 weeks of submit-to-decision time and 2 weeks of acceptance-to-publish.
All submissions to CJM go through a double-blind peer-review process to ensure content quality and fairness. In the first stage, a technical editor checks the format and style of the manuscript to assure its compatibility with CJM’s guidelines for authors. If authors have not considered the guidelines, the manuscript will be returned to the authors. Authors will be informed of the manuscript’s receipt and editorial decisions by email. During the peer review process, authors can check the status of their manuscripts on the Online Manuscript Submission System.
Editorial board members are informed of new submissions based on their expertise. They assess the submitted manuscripts initially for subject matter, scope compatibility, and novelty. Then the Editor-in-Chief continues the process based on the editorial board members' comments.
Based on the subject matter and the Editor-in-Chief’s decision, the manuscript will then be assigned to section/associate editors for a fast pre-review screening to be completed within 5 days. Section editors check the manuscript for content quality (with a focus on methodology, originality, and contribution to knowledge or practice) and English language fluency. The decision at this stage is fast reject, revise and re-submit, or assign to external reviewers for a detailed evaluation. External reviewers are selected based on their scientific background and experience, previous works, authors’ suggestions, and expertise. Every attempt is made to obtain at least 2 or 3 strong reviews of each manuscript. The Editor-in-Chief receives the reviewers’ comments and sends them along with a decision letter to the corresponding author.
An CJM decision letter apprises the author of the status of the manuscript in four ways:
1- Acceptance: This decision indicates the manuscript can be published electronically. This process lasts one to two weeks. Before electronic publication, the corresponding author should verify a galley proof of the article. CJM supports the Advance Access initiative by which papers that have been copy edited and typeset but not yet paginated for inclusion in an issue of the journal appear online upon completion of the review process. Advance accessed papers will be placed in a queue to be published in one of CJM’s upcoming issues.
2- Minor Revision: Authors receiving this decision will be given comments on their manuscript and asked to submit a revised copy (showing all changes they have made to the manuscript using Track and Change or highlighted color) and a response to the reviewer’s file in which they need to respond to each and every comment made by the reviewers one by one (for each reviewer separately). Revisions should be submitted within 4 weeks of issuance of the decision letter; otherwise, authors will need to go through a re-submission process.
3- Major Revision: This decision gives the authors a chance to reorganize the manuscript to meet the required scientific criteria for another review process. Authors are also asked to submit a revised copy (showing all changes they have made to the manuscript using Track and Change or highlighted color) and a response to the reviewer’s file in which they must respond to each and every comment made by the reviewers one by one (for each reviewer separately). Revisions should be submitted within 4 weeks of issuance of the decision letter; otherwise, authors will need to go through a re-submission process.
4- Rejection: In most cases of rejection, methodological and scientific concerns are the main rationale. Causes of rejection will be sent to the authors to provide them with a chance for publication in other journals.
Manuscripts resubmitted after minor or major revisions have been made go through the same process as the previous version. They are sent to the peer reviewers who reviewed the previous version of the manuscript as well as new ones if necessary or in case of controversy between peer reviewers. The final decision about the manuscript is made by the Editor-in-Chief.
Accepted manuscripts will be edited according to CMJ's Guide for Authors (this does not include language editing) and returned to the corresponding author for final approval. All contributing authors are responsible for all statements made in the manuscript during editing and production that are authorized by the corresponding author.
Requests for the publication of corrections should be sent to the editorial office. Corrections will be reviewed by editors, published immediately, and linked online to the original paper.
CJM senior editors (EIC, associate editor, section editor) will handle any claims about ethical and methodological errors. If the error can be corrected, then the authors will be invited to provide the correction. If the error is considerable and violent the ethical right of the manuscript will be retracted and a retraction notice will be published with the name of the article.
Authors are asked to assure no violation of rights reserved for the third parties. In case of any violation, the article will be removed by the decision of senior editors.
If you want to join our Editor/Reviewer team you can find a link and description here (Link to submitting request)
How to review an article: guidance by managing editor
How to add your review to Publons account