Peer Review Process

The Journal of Clinical Intensive Care and Medicine (JCICM) employs a rigorous double-blind peer review process to ensure the integrity, quality, and scientific validity of all published articles. This section outlines the stages of peer review, reviewer responsibilities, and author rights.

Stages of Peer Review

  1. Initial Screening: The editorial office screens submissions for scope, formatting, and plagiarism.
  2. Editor Assignment: An editor is assigned based on subject expertise.
  3. Reviewer Selection: Manuscripts are sent to 2–3 independent expert reviewers.
  4. Review Evaluation: Reviewers assess originality, methodology, ethics, and significance.
  5. Editorial Decision: The editor makes a decision (accept, revise, reject) based on reviewer reports.
  6. Revision Process: Authors submit revised manuscripts addressing reviewer comments.
  7. Final Decision: The editor issues the final decision after considering revisions and reviewer re-assessments.

Types of Decisions

  • Accept: Manuscript meets journal standards with minor or no changes.
  • Minor Revision: Small changes required before acceptance.
  • Major Revision: Substantial changes required; resubmission for review.
  • Reject: Manuscript unsuitable due to major flaws or scope mismatch.

Reviewer Responsibilities

  • Provide objective, constructive, and evidence-based feedback.
  • Maintain confidentiality of all manuscript content.
  • Disclose conflicts of interest to the editor.
  • Identify ethical issues (plagiarism, data manipulation, duplicate publication).
  • Submit reviews within the agreed timeline.

Author Rights

  • Authors receive detailed feedback from reviewers and editors.
  • Authors may appeal decisions with clear justifications.
  • Revisions are assessed fairly without prejudice.
  • Final acceptance is based solely on scientific merit and ethical compliance.

Confidentiality

JCICM follows a double-blind review system where both authors and reviewers remain anonymous. Editors ensure all manuscript data is handled with strict confidentiality.

Timelines

JCICM strives for an efficient review process. The typical timeline is:

  • Initial screening: 5–7 business days.
  • Peer review: 2–3 weeks.
  • Revision review: 1–2 weeks.
  • Final decision: within 6–8 weeks of initial submission.

Appeals and Complaints

Authors may appeal editorial decisions by submitting a written request with detailed justification. Appeals are reviewed by a senior editor or independent board member.

FAQs

Can I suggest reviewers? Yes, authors may suggest reviewers, but the final choice rests with editors.

Are reviewer comments anonymous? Yes, under the double-blind system.

Can rejected manuscripts be resubmitted? Only if substantially revised and with editor’s permission.