Peer-Review Process

Double-Blind Peer Review Process

Our journal follows a double-blind peer review process, ensuring that both the authors and the reviewers remain anonymous throughout the review cycle. This process aligns with best practices for transparency and impartiality as outlined by the Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ).

Steps in the Double-Blind Peer Review Process:

1. Submission of Manuscript

   • Authors submit their manuscript through the journal's online submission system, ensuring that all identifying information (names, affiliations, acknowledgments, etc.) is removed from the manuscript file. A separate title page containing this information is submitted separately for internal use.

2. Initial Editorial Assessment

   • Upon receiving a submission, the editorial team assesses the manuscript to ensure it meets the journal's scope and basic quality standards (e.g., formatting, structure). Manuscripts that do not meet these criteria may be rejected at this stage without peer review.

3. Anonymization

   • The editorial office ensures that the manuscript is anonymized before being sent to reviewers. This includes removing any information that could reveal the identity of the authors, such as self-citations or institutional affiliations.

4. Selection of Reviewers

   • Editors invite independent experts in the relevant field to review the manuscript. Reviewers are chosen based on their expertise and lack of conflicts of interest with the authors or the subject matter. Reviewers are provided with anonymized manuscripts to review.

5. Review Process

   • Reviewers assess the manuscript based on its scientific rigor, originality, clarity, and contribution to the field. They provide constructive feedback, suggest revisions if needed, and recommend one of the following actions: accept, revise, or reject. Reviewers are unaware of the authors' identities, and their identities remain confidential to the authors as well.

6. Author Revisions

   • If revisions are required, authors receive the anonymized reviewer comments and are asked to submit a revised version of their manuscript. The revision must be done without revealing the authors' identities. A point-by-point response to reviewers' comments is also required.

7. Final Decision

   • Once the manuscript has been reviewed and any necessary revisions have been made, the editorial team makes the final decision based on the reviewers’ feedback. In cases of significant disagreement between reviewers, a third reviewer may be consulted, or the editorial team may adjudicate.

8. Publication

   • If the manuscript is accepted, the final version is prepared for publication. Authors' identities are revealed only at this stage. The final published article includes proper attribution to the authors.

Reviewer Guidelines:

• Reviewers are expected to maintain confidentiality about the content and nature of the manuscript.
• Reviewers should avoid any biases based on personal relationships, affiliations, or competition with the authors.
• All review comments should be objective, constructive, and aimed at improving the manuscript.

---

This process ensures fairness and objectivity, preventing bias based on personal or professional relationships.

• The CIJMR does not allow a similarity index of >10%.
• Any adoption of material (figure, diagnostic criteria, figures, etc.) from previous research work or publications needs to be produced after taking permission from publisher/authors of original publication and proper credits to the original research.
• The copyright of the published work lies with the author. However, when the author cites any published work with the journal it needs to be duly cited.
• As the journal is a non-profit journal and does not charge the author for submission, we do not allow the published material to be used for commercial purposes without permission.