Peer Review Policy
The Journal of Clinical and Advanced Medicine (JCAM) employs a rigorous, impartial Double-Blind Peer Review system to safeguard the academic integrity and validity of all published works. Under this framework, the identities of the authors are hidden from the reviewers, and the identities of the reviewers are hidden from the authors throughout the entire process.
Evaluation Workflow
- Initial Verification: Upon submission, the Editorial Office assesses the manuscript for scope alignment, formatting compliance, and text originality (strict 15% or below similarity index threshold).
- Expert Assessment: Cleaned, unidentifiable manuscripts are assigned to at least two independent external experts in the relevant clinical or technical field.
- Reviewer Criteria: Reviewers evaluate the manuscript’s scientific originality, methodological soundness, ethical compliance (e.g., human/animal subject trial approvals), data interpretations, and clinical relevance.
- Final Decision: Based on the detailed critiques and recommendations (Accept, Minor Revision, Major Revision, or Reject), the Editor-in-Chief executes the final decision.
Reviewer Code of Conduct
- Reviewers must treat all incoming manuscripts as strictly confidential documents.
- Potential conflicts of interest (financial, institutional, or collaborative) must be declared immediately to the editor, resulting in recusal from the assignment.
Processing Timeline
- Initial Screening & Desk Decision: 3 to 5 Days
- Peer Review Completion Window: 15 to 21 Days
- Post-Acceptance Digital Publication: 5 Days
