Peer Review Policy and Reviewer Guidelines

Steps of Peer Review 

The peer review process begins with editorial triage, where the editorial office first assesses whether the manuscript fits within the journal's scope. Following this, the manuscript is reviewed for adherence to journal guidelines, including formatting, completeness, and required documents. The editor then evaluates the manuscript's novelty and its contribution to the field, along with conducting a quality and plagiarism check. If the manuscript fails to meet these criteria, it may be rejected.

Once a manuscript passes the triage, it is assigned to a Section Editor for internal review, who specializes in the relevant field. This editor conducts an internal review, evaluating the manuscript’s scientific quality, validity, and significance.

During the internal peer review, the Section Editor first ensures that the manuscript aligns with the journal’s standards. Based on their assessment, they decide whether to send the manuscript for external review or reject it. If deemed suitable, the Section Editor selects 2–3 external peer reviewers who are subject-matter experts.

The external peer review phase begins when reviewers are invited and provided access to the manuscript. They evaluate it based on scientific rigor, novelty, accuracy, clarity, and ethical considerations, ultimately submitting their critiques and recommendations.

After receiving the reviewer reports, the Section Editor compiles the feedback and makes a decision, which may include accepting the manuscript, requesting minor or major revisions, or rejecting it.

This decision is forwarded to the Editor-in-Chief (EIC), who makes the final call regarding acceptance, required revisions, or rejection, along with providing feedback to the authors.

If revisions are requested, authors address the comments and resubmit the manuscript, which may undergo another review cycle if significant changes are made. After revisions, the Section Editor and reviewers assess the changes before making a final recommendation to the EIC, who ultimately decides on publication.

Once accepted, the manuscript moves to copyediting and production, where it is formatted and proofread. Authors have a final opportunity to review proofs before publication. Finally, the manuscript is published online or in print and indexed by relevant databases, completing the peer review process.

Details of Initial manuscript evaluation

The Editorial Team initially evaluates all submitted manuscripts to ensure completeness. Manuscripts are rejected at this stage if they lack originality, have significant scientific flaws, contain poor grammar or English, or fall outside the journal's aims and scope. Manuscripts meeting the minimum criteria are forwarded to two relevant external reviewers, typically one national and one international. Based on their evaluations, the manuscript is either returned to the authors for revisions or rejected if the reviewers are not satisfied. Revised manuscripts may be sent back to the same reviewers for a second round of review to verify the changes or assessed by the editorial team to confirm that the reviewers' suggestions have been incorporated. The final decision lies with the editorial team.

The preliminary assessment of manuscripts typically takes around 2-3 weeks. The peer review process usually takes an additional 3-4 weeks. From the time of submission to publication, the entire process averages 12-14 weeks, depending on the extent of revisions suggested by the reviewers and the editorial team.

Type of peer review
JUCMD employs double blind reviewing, in which the reviewer remain anonymous to the author(s) throughout and following the review process, whilst the identity of the author(s) is likewise unknown to the reviewers. Reviewers are requested to evaluate whether the manuscript:

  • Is original as to thought and method (including data)
  • Is methodologically sound
  • Has results which are clearly presented and support the conclusions
  • Correctly and exhaustively references previous relevant work
  • Follows appropriate ethical guidelines, especially as concerns plagiarism
  • Clearly adds to the knowledge and development of the field

Language correction is not part of the peer review process, but reviewers are encouraged to suggest corrections of language and style to the manuscript. In rare cases, the manuscript may be returned to the author(s) for a full linguistic and stylistic revision. The chief editor's decision is final.

The whole process from submission to acceptance of the manuscript takes around 12-14 weeks on average.

Revewer Guidelines for JUCMD

The role of a reviewer for JUCMD is pivotal in maintaining the publication's academic integrity and quality. Reviewers are expected to:

  • Confidentiality: Treat all manuscript details as confidential, refraining from sharing or discussing them outside the review process.

  • Unbiased Evaluation: Assess manuscripts solely on their scholarly merit, without bias towards the authors' race, gender, nationality, or institutional affiliation.

  • Conflict of Interest Disclosure: Promptly disclose any potential conflicts of interest that might influence their impartiality, such as personal or professional relationships with the authors.

  • Timely Review: Complete manuscript evaluations within the agreed-upon timeframe to ensure the journal's publication schedule remains on track.

  • Constructive Feedback: Provide clear, concise, and constructive critiques aimed at enhancing the manuscript's quality, including suggestions for improvement where necessary.

  • Ethical Considerations: Ensure that the research adheres to ethical standards, including appropriate approvals and informed consent when applicable.

  • Methodological Rigor: Evaluate the study's methodology for clarity and appropriateness, ensuring that the research design and analysis are sound.

  • Literature Contextualization: Assess whether the manuscript appropriately references existing literature, situating its contributions within the broader academic discourse.

  • Originality and Contribution: Judge the manuscript's originality and its contribution to the field, ensuring it offers new insights or advancements.

  • Clarity and Presentation: Review the manuscript for clarity, coherence, and organization, ensuring that the content is presented logically and understandably.