Peer Review Policy | Journal of Clinical Intensive Care and Medicine

Commitment to Rigorous Peer Review

The Journal of Clinical Intensive Care and Medicine (JCICM) adheres to a transparent and rigorous peer review process that ensures the quality, reliability, and academic integrity of all published articles. Our peer review model follows guidelines of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), the ICMJE, and the World Association of Medical Editors (WAME).

Peer Review Model

JCICM follows a double-blind peer review process, where both reviewers and authors remain anonymous to each other throughout the review cycle. This ensures fairness, minimizes bias, and promotes objective evaluation.

Reviewer Selection

Reviewers are carefully chosen based on:

Expertise in the subject area of the submitted manuscript.
Absence of conflicts of interest.
Track record of scholarly contributions and peer review experience.
Geographic and institutional diversity to ensure inclusivity.

Reviewer Guidelines

Reviewers are expected to provide:

Constructive, objective, and timely feedback.
Critical evaluation of methodology, originality, and relevance.
Recommendations for improvement, including clarity and ethical compliance.
Confidentiality throughout the review process.

Editorial Decision-Making

Editorial decisions are based on reviewer comments, scientific merit, and editorial board evaluations. Possible decisions include:

Acceptance (with or without minor revisions).
Major revision with re-submission for review.
Rejection with detailed feedback to guide future work.

Timeframe

The initial editorial decision is typically provided within 3–4 weeks of submission. Revised manuscripts are prioritized to ensure timely publication.

Confidentiality

All manuscripts are treated as confidential documents. Editors and reviewers are prohibited from using or disclosing any part of an unpublished manuscript for personal advantage.

Ethical Considerations

Reviewers must report suspected plagiarism, duplicate publication, data fabrication, or unethical research practices. JCICM takes all ethical breaches seriously and follows COPE’s guidelines for handling misconduct.

Recognition of Reviewers

JCICM values the contributions of peer reviewers. We provide certificates of recognition and may acknowledge reviewers annually (with consent) to highlight their contributions to advancing intensive care scholarship.

FAQs

How many reviewers assess a manuscript? Typically two independent reviewers, with a third if opinions differ significantly.

Are reviewer comments shared with authors? Yes, anonymized comments are shared in full with authors.

Can authors suggest reviewers? Yes, authors may suggest qualified reviewers, but final selection rests with editors.

Are reviews anonymous? Yes, JCICM follows a double-blind model to ensure anonymity.