Overview

Journal of Clinical & Biomedical Studies (JCBS) has a rigorous policy involving double-blind peer review in order to secure the highest standards of academic quality and integrity for the works it publishes.

The journal assesses all manuscripts it receives according to their originality, methodological soundness, clarity, and the extent to which they make a scholarly contribution to the fields of biomedical sciences, clinical medicine, public health, and medical education.

Double-Blind Review Process

Journal of Clinical & Biomedical Studies (JCBS) employs a double-blind peer review process, which means:

·        The identities of the authors are kept hidden from the reviewers.

·        The names of the reviewers are kept hidden from the authors.

This process guarantees fairness, reduces bias, and supports an objective academic evaluation.

Stages of Peer Review

Stage 1: Initial Editorial Screening

Upon submission, each manuscript is first reviewed by the Editor-in-Chief or an Associate Editor to verify:

·        The manuscript is within the scope and meets the aims of Journal of Clinical & Biomedical Studies (JCBS).

·        The submission adheres to the required ethical and formatting standards.

·        The paper comes out successfully when checked for plagiarism (the similarity index is less than or equal to 18%).

Manuscripts that do not meet these criteria are sent back to the authors for revision or are rejected prior to undergoing peer review.

Stage 2: Reviewer Assignment

Manuscripts which pass the first screening are given to two or more qualified reviewers who have specialist knowledge in the subject matter.

The reviewers are chosen from either the Editorial Board or the external expert pool.

Stage 3: Review Evaluation

Each reviewer is requested to evaluate the manuscript based on the following criteria:

·        Originality and contribution to the advancement of knowledge.

·        Connection with the journal's scope.

·        The clarity of the objectives, methods, and conclusions.

·        The accuracy and adequacy of the references.

·        The theoretical or practical significance.

·        The quality of the writing and the general presentation.

Reviewers provide constructive comments and one of the following recommendations:

·       Accept without revision

·       Minor revision required

·       Major revision required

·       Reject

Stage 4: Editorial Decision

·        The Associate Editor puts together the reports submitted by the reviewers and makes a recommendation to the Editor-in-Chief.

·        The Editor-in-Chief is the one who finally decides whether to accept, revise, or reject the submission.

·        Authors will be informed of the decision together with the reviewers' comments in order to help them make the necessary revisions.

Stage 5: Revision and Resubmission

·        Those authors who are asked for either 'minor' or 'major' revisions must make the required changes and resubmit them within the given time frame (typically 10 to 20 days).

·        When it is necessary, the reviewers who had previously examined the revised manuscripts will reevaluate them.

Stage 6: Final Acceptance and Proofing

·        Once a manuscript has been accepted, it is subject to copyediting and proofreading to check its accuracy, formatting, and consistency.

·        The Editor-in-Chief gives his approval to the final version before it is published.

 

Review Timelines

·       Initial editorial screening: 10–14 days

·       Peer review process: 3–5 weeks

·       Total decision time: approximately 5–7 weeks

Reviewer Ethics and Confidentiality

·        Reviewers must keep all manuscripts private.

·        They must not use any of the ideas or data from the papers under review for their own benefit.

·        Reviewers should declare any conflicts of interest before they accept a review invitation.

·        All the reviews have to be objective, based on evidence, and respectful.

Author Responsibilities

·        Authors are required to fully co-operate with the review process.

·        They have to systematically address the reviewers' comments in the revision file.

·        Revised manuscripts should include a “Response to Reviewers” document in which the way in which each point has been addressed is explained.

Ethical Oversight

·        The Journal of Clinical & Biomedical Studies (JCBS) adheres to the ethical guidelines for peer review set out by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).

·        Any instances of plagiarism, data fabrication, authorship disputes or unethical behaviour will be dealt with in accordance with the COPE recommendations.

Appeals and Complaints

·        Authors have the option of challenging an editorial decision by sending the Editor-in-Chief a formal written reason for their appeal.

·        The appeal will be examined by an independent editorial panel and their decision will be final.

Post-Publication Review

·        People who read the material or carry out research are asked to point out any important errors or ethical issues that are discovered after the paper has been published.

·        The journal will, when necessary, publish corrections, retractions or updates in line with the COPE policy.

Reviewer Recognition

Journal of Clinical & Biomedical Studies (JCBS) acknowledges the essential role of peer reviewers by:

·        Giving out official reviewer certificates.

·        Listing the reviewers' names annually (with their consent) on the journal's website.