Peer Review Process
Clinical Biomedical Communications (CBC) maintains a rigorous evaluation process to ensure the publication of high-quality, impactful research. The journal’s editorial policy is designed to be transparent, efficient, and fair to all contributors.
Editorial and Peer Review Policy
CBC follows a single anonymized review process. Each submission is initially assessed by the journal editors to determine its suitability for publication.
Manuscripts are evaluated for scope relevance, novelty, ethical integrity, scientific quality, and compliance with the journal’s standards. Manuscripts that do not meet the journal’s editorial criteria may be rejected without external review, either because of insufficient general interest or because the subject matter falls outside the stated Aims & Scope of the journal.
Scope and Manuscript Requirements
To be considered for publication, manuscripts must meet the following criteria:
Originality: The work must be original and not currently under consideration by any other journal.
Ethical Compliance: Authors must provide mandatory documentation of ethics committee or Institutional Review Board (IRB) approval for all studies involving human or animal subjects.
Standards: Submissions must adhere strictly to the journal’s formatting and ethical guidelines.
The Evaluation Process
The journey from submission to publication follows a structured, multi-stage path.
1. Editorial Screening
Every manuscript undergoes an initial assessment by the Editor-in-Chief or Section Editors. They evaluate the work for scope relevance, novelty, ethical integrity, and general quality.
Manuscripts that do not meet these fundamental standards may be desk-rejected to prevent unnecessary delays for the authors.
2. Peer Review
If the submission is deemed suitable, it is typically sent to a minimum of two reviewers for an independent expert assessment of scientific quality.
Qualifying manuscripts enter a single-blind peer review process. Each paper is evaluated by at least two independent experts in the field who assess scientific validity, methodological rigor, clarity, and clinical or biological significance.
All other papers, whether volunteered or solicited, will be rigorously appraised by at least two referees, and their comments will be made available to the author.
3. Editorial Decision
Based on the reviewers’ reports and editorial assessment, the editors may issue one of the following decisions:
• Accept: The manuscript is ready for publication.
• Minor Revision: Small changes or clarifications are required.
• Major Revision: Significant technical or conceptual improvements are needed.
• Reject: The manuscript does not meet the journal’s requirements for publication.
The decision as to whether an article is accepted or rejected is taken by the editors.
Appeals and Complaints
CBC is committed to a fair, transparent, and rigorous editorial process. Authors may appeal a formal rejection if they believe the decision was based on a technical error, a misunderstanding of the data, or a failure to consider specific evidence presented in the manuscript.
Appeals must be submitted in writing and include a detailed rebuttal letter.
The rebuttal must address the reviewers’ and editors’ comments point by point, providing scientific evidence or clarification to support the authors’ position.
Appeals based purely on a difference of opinion regarding “impact” or “interest level” are rarely successful; the focus should remain on factual or methodological corrections.
Appeal Review Process
To ensure impartiality, appeals are not handled solely by the original deciding editor.
Each appeal is reviewed by a senior editorial panel or an independent editor who was not involved in the initial decision.
The panel may decide to:
• Uphold the original decision
• Invite a revision based on the new clarifications
• Seek additional external reviews from new independent experts
Formal Complaints and Ethics Investigations
Complaints regarding editorial conduct, conflicts of interest, or suspected research misconduct are treated with seriousness.
All investigations follow the protocols established by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). Upon receiving a formal complaint, the journal may conduct an internal inquiry and, where necessary, consult the authors’ home institutions, funding bodies, or other relevant stakeholders to reach a resolution.
The journal handles all complaints with appropriate discretion to protect the rights of all parties involved during the investigative phase.