Review Process

Editorial Workflow

The Journal of Clinical and Advanced Medicine (JCAM) follows a structured, transparent, and ethical editorial workflow designed to ensure scientific integrity, editorial independence, and high-quality publication. All manuscripts are managed through the Open Journal Systems (OJS) platform.

1. Submission & Initial Screening

Upon submission, the editorial office conducts an initial assessment to evaluate:

  • Completeness of the submission
  • Compliance with author and submission guidelines
  • Plagiarism screening
  • Ethical compliance (human/animal research, consent, approvals)
  • Relevance to the journal’s aims and scope

Manuscripts that do not meet these basic requirements may be returned for correction or desk rejected.

2. Editor Assignment

An appropriate Handling Editor or Section Editor is assigned based on subject expertise. The editor evaluates:

  • Scientific relevance and originality
  • Quality of writing and presentation
  • Clarity of objectives and methodology
  • Suitability for external peer review

Manuscripts deemed unsuitable at this stage may be rejected without external review.

3. Peer Review Coordination

Manuscripts passing the editorial assessment are sent for single-blind peer review. The editor identifies and invites qualified, independent reviewers with relevant subject expertise.

4. Reviewer Evaluation

Reviewers provide detailed, constructive assessments focusing on:

  • Originality and novelty
  • Scientific rigor and methodological quality
  • Accuracy and clarity of results and interpretation
  • Ethical considerations and data integrity
  • Relevance to the journal’s scope

Reviewers submit one of the following recommendations:

  • Accept
  • Minor Revision
  • Major Revision
  • Reject
  • Resubmit for Review

5. Editorial Decision

Based on reviewer reports, the handling editor makes an informed decision:

  • Accept
  • Minor Revision
  • Major Revision
  • Resubmit for Review
  • Reject

Revised manuscripts may undergo additional review rounds depending on the extent of revisions required.

6. Revision & Author Response

Authors are required to submit:

  • A revised manuscript
  • A detailed point-by-point response addressing each reviewer comment

The editor verifies whether revisions adequately meet scientific, ethical, and editorial standards.

7. Final Acceptance

Once all reviewer and editorial requirements are satisfactorily addressed, the manuscript is formally accepted for publication.

8. Production Process

Accepted manuscripts undergo:

  • Professional copyediting
  • Layout and formatting
  • Proofreading
  • Author proof review and approval

Final corrections are incorporated before publication.

9. Online Publication

JCAM follows a Continuous Publication model. After final production:

  • Each article is published online immediately upon readiness
  • A Digital Object Identifier (DOI) is assigned
  • Articles are distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY 4.0) license
  • Content is archived according to the journal’s preservation policy

Peer Review Process

JCAM employs a Single-Blind Peer Review system to ensure objective, fair, and rigorous evaluation of all submissions.

What Single-Blind Peer Review Means

  • Reviewers are aware of author identities
  • Authors do not know reviewer identities
  • Reviewer anonymity supports independent and unbiased assessment

1. Reviewer Selection

Reviewers are selected based on:

  • Subject-area expertise
  • Research and publication experience
  • Professional standing
  • Ability to provide objective, timely, and constructive feedback

Typically, a minimum of two reviewers are assigned.

2. Review Criteria

Reviewers assess manuscripts for:

  • Scientific significance and contribution to the field
  • Methodological soundness and data quality
  • Clarity, organization, and accuracy of presentation
  • Ethical compliance
  • Alignment with JCAM’s scope and standards

3. Reviewer Recommendations

Reviewers submit one of the following recommendations:

  • Accept
  • Minor Revision
  • Major Revision
  • Reject
  • Resubmit for Review

4. Confidentiality & Ethics

Reviewers must:

  • Treat all manuscripts as confidential
  • Avoid sharing or discussing content with third parties
  • Declare any conflicts of interest
  • Provide objective, respectful, and ethical feedback

5. Editorial Oversight

Editors make the final publication decision based on:

  • Reviewer feedback
  • Scientific quality and originality
  • Ethical compliance
  • Relevance to the journal’s aims and scope

If reviewer opinions conflict, an additional reviewer may be invited.

6. Appeals

Authors may appeal editorial decisions by submitting:

  • A formal written appeal
  • Clear, evidence-based responses to reviewer or editorial concerns

The Editor-in-Chief reviews all appeals and may initiate further evaluation if justified.