Review Process

Editorial Workflow & Peer Review Policy

The Journal of Clinical and Advanced Medicine (JCAM) employs a high-efficiency, transparent, and ethical editorial workflow designed to ensure scientific integrity and rapid dissemination of medical research. All manuscripts are managed through the Open Journal Systems (OJS) platform to maintain a complete audit trail of the review process.

JCAM utilizes a Single-Blind Peer Review system. In this model, reviewers are aware of the authors' identities, but author identities remain confidential to the reviewers. This ensures an objective, fair, and rigorous evaluation by independent subject matter experts.

The JCAM Accelerated Review Cycle (25–30 Days)

To support the timely needs of clinical research, JCAM aims for a total turnaround of 25–30 days from initial submission to final online publication.

1. Submission & Initial Screening (Days 1–3) Upon submission, the Editorial Office conducts a technical assessment:

  • Plagiarism Screening: All manuscripts are screened via Turnitin/iThenticate. A similarity index below 15% (excluding references) is mandatory.
  • Ethical Compliance: Verification of IRB approvals, human/animal research ethics, and informed consent.
  • Scope Check: Alignment with JCAM’s clinical and translational focus.

2. Editor Assignment & Internal Review (Days 4–5) A Handling Editor with relevant subject expertise is assigned. The Editor evaluates the manuscript for scientific novelty and methodological quality. Manuscripts deemed unsuitable are desk-rejected at this stage to save authors' time.

3. External Peer Review (Days 6–20) Manuscripts passing internal review are sent to a minimum of two independent, external reviewers. Reviewers are selected based on their professional standing and lack of conflicts of interest. They evaluate:

  • Scientific significance and novelty.
  • Methodological rigor and data integrity.
  • Clarity of results and clinical relevance.

4. Editorial Decision (Days 21–23) Based on the reports from the two independent reviewers, the Editor reaches one of the following decisions:

  • Accept: Ready for production.
  • Minor Revision: Small technical or stylistic changes needed.
  • Major Revision: Significant improvements required, often followed by a second review round.
  • Reject: Flawed methodology or lack of clinical significance.

5. Revision & Author Response Authors must provide a revised manuscript and a point-by-point response to reviewer concerns. The Editor verifies if the revisions meet the required scientific and ethical standards.

6. Final Acceptance & Production (Days 24–28) Once accepted, the manuscript enters the production phase:

  • Professional copyediting and layout formatting.
  • Author review of the final galley proof.

7. Online Publication (Day 30) JCAM follows a Continuous Publication model. After final approval:

  • The article is published online immediately with a Digital Object Identifier (DOI) via Crossref.
  • Content is distributed under the CC BY 4.0 license and archived via LOCKSS/CLOCKSS.

Confidentiality & Ethics for Reviewers

Reviewers are required to:

  • Treat all manuscripts as strictly confidential.
  • Declare any potential conflicts of interest before accepting a review.
  • Provide objective, respectful, and constructive feedback.

Appeals Process

Authors may appeal an editorial decision by submitting a formal written appeal to the Editor-in-Chief. Appeals must be evidence-based and address the specific technical or ethical concerns raised during the review.