Log in

Editorial Policies

Peer Review Process

Peer review process

Peer review will be used to assess the quality of a manuscript before it is published in the CJMS.   Peer review helps to validate research, establish a method by which it can be evaluated in a scientific manner. 

Independent reviewers in the relevant area of expertise will assess submitted manuscripts for originality, validity and significance to help Editorial Board determine whether a manuscript merits publication in the CJMS.

When a manuscript is submitted to the journal, the Editor will assess it to see if it meets the focus and scope of the CJMS and it is assessed to see if it meets the criteria for submission.  If it does, potential reviewers within the field of research will be selected to review the manuscript and make recommendations. The CJMS uses a double-blind peer-review policy, where the identities of both reviewers and authors are concealed from each other throughout the review process. 

Each manuscript will be independently reviewed by a minimum of two reviewers. The reviewers’ decisions will be considered by the Editorial Board and conveyed to the authors along with suggested revisions. All reviewed manuscripts will be categorised as, accepted, accepted with major revisions, accepted with minor revisions and rejected.  Where necessary authors will be requested to make revisions.  The revised manuscript will be forwarded to the same reviewers for their final decision. Based on the final recommendation of the reviewers the Editorial Board will decide on the suitability of the manuscript for publication.

The average time taken for completion of review is three months, and CJMS currently publish a peer-reviewed manuscript within 3-9 months of receipt.   Time-frame given for authors to make changes to the manuscript after peer review process is 6 weeks, and the expected time from acceptance to publication ranges from 2-4 months from the time of return of the amended manuscript.

Section Policies