Reviewer Guidelines
Peer reviewers play a vital role in maintaining the academic standards and clinical validity of the Journal of Clinical and Advanced Medicine (JCAM). Because JCAM utilizes a strict Double-Blind Peer Review system, reviewers must evaluate manuscripts impartially without access to author details.
Reviewer Code of Conduct
- Confidentiality: Every manuscript received for evaluation must be treated as a highly confidential document. It must not be shared, discussed, or distributed to third parties without explicit authorization from the Editor-in-Chief.
- Conflict of Interest: Reviewers must immediately recuse themselves and notify the editor if they identify a financial, institutional, professional, or collaborative conflict of interest regarding the research or its authors.
- Objectivity & Constructive Feedback: Evaluations should be completed objectively. Personal criticism of authors is entirely inappropriate. Feedback should be clearly formulated, scientifically supported, and designed to help authors improve their work.
Evaluation Timeline & Checklist
Reviewers are requested to submit their reports within 15 to 21 days. When evaluating, please assess:
- Is the study original and clinically significant?
- Are the materials and methods described clearly enough to allow replication?
- Are the statistical analyses appropriate and the interpretations valid?
- Do the conclusions logically flow from the presented results?
- Is the literature review complete and up to date?
