Journal of Clinical Question
Peer-Review Policies
4. Revisions
5. Final Submission and Acceptance
Submission Process
Upon submission, each manuscript undergoes an initial editorial assessment to determine its relevance to the journal's scope, scientific and methodological quality, ethical compliance, and overall suitability for peer review. Manuscripts that do not meet the journal's editorial standards may be rejected without external peer review.
Manuscripts that pass the initial editorial assessment are sent for external peer review. Initial editorial assessment is typically completed within 7 days of submission.
Peer Review Procedure
The Journal of Clinical Question operates a single-blind peer-review system, in which reviewers are aware of the identities and affiliations of the authors, while reviewers' identities are normally concealed from the authors.
Manuscripts that proceed to external peer review are normally evaluated by at least two independent external reviewers with relevant expertise in the subject area and, where appropriate, the study methodology.
Reviewers must disclose any actual or potential competing interests and should decline a review when circumstances could reasonably affect their objectivity. Editors must likewise disclose relevant competing interests and recuse themselves from handling manuscripts where a conflict may affect editorial independence.
Authors may suggest potential reviewers or request the exclusion of specific individuals. However, the final selection of reviewers remains at the discretion of the handling editor.
Post-Review Decision
Following peer review, the handling editor or Editor-in-Chief may make one of the following decisions:
- Accept: The manuscript is suitable for publication without further substantive revision.
- Minor Revision: Limited revisions are required before a final decision can be made.
- Major Revision: Substantial revisions are required and further editorial assessment or peer review may be necessary.
- Reject: The manuscript is not suitable for publication in the journal.
Reviewer recommendations are advisory. The final editorial decision is made by the handling editor or Editor-in-Chief after consideration of the reviewers' reports, the authors' responses, journal policies, and editorial standards.
Where reviewer opinions differ substantially, the editor may seek an additional independent review.
Revisions
If revision is requested, authors should submit a revised manuscript together with a detailed point-by-point response addressing the reviewers' and editors' comments.
Manuscripts may undergo one or more rounds of revision as necessary to adequately address editorial and reviewer concerns.
Revised manuscripts may be reassessed by the handling editor and, where appropriate, returned to the original reviewers or evaluated by additional reviewers.
Submission of a revised manuscript does not guarantee acceptance.
Final Submission and Acceptance
A manuscript is accepted only when the handling editor or Editor-in-Chief is satisfied that relevant scientific, methodological, ethical, and reporting concerns have been adequately addressed.
Following acceptance, the manuscript proceeds to production and proof review. Changes at the proof stage should generally be limited to necessary corrections and should not materially alter the scientific content of the accepted manuscript.
To promote transparency in scholarly communication, the anonymized peer-review history of accepted peer-reviewed articles is normally published as supplementary information. This may include reviewer reports, authors' responses, and relevant editorial decision correspondence.
Information may be withheld or redacted where necessary to protect reviewer confidentiality, personal information, patient confidentiality, or other ethical or legal interests.
Appeals and Complaints
Authors may appeal an editorial decision when they believe that a significant factual error, procedural error, or demonstrable reviewer or editorial bias materially affected the decision.
Appeals should clearly explain the grounds for reconsideration and provide relevant supporting information. Appeals based solely on disagreement with editorial judgment will not normally result in reconsideration.
Appeals are evaluated by the editorial team and, where appropriate, may be reviewed by an editor who was not involved in the original decision or by an additional independent reviewer.
Only one appeal per manuscript will normally be considered.
Complaints concerning editorial procedures, publication ethics, or other aspects of the journal's operation will be handled in accordance with the journal's Editorial Policies and applicable COPE guidance.