Clinical & Molecular Biomedicine (CMB) 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.

Every manuscript submitted to CMB undergoes an initial assessment by the Editor-in-Chief or Section Editors. At this stage, the manuscript is evaluated for scope relevance, novelty, ethical integrity, and general quality.

Manuscripts that do not meet the journal’s fundamental standards may be desk-rejected to prevent unnecessary delays for authors.

Qualifying manuscripts enter a single-blind peer review process. Each manuscript is evaluated by at least two independent experts in the relevant field.

Reviewers assess manuscripts according to the following criteria:

• Scientific validity

• Methodological rigor

• Clarity

• Clinical or biological significance

• Originality and relevance to the journal’s scope

• Ethical and reporting compliance

The peer review process is managed to ensure that evaluations are objective, constructive, unbiased, and completed in a timely manner.

Reviewers are selected based on their expertise in the subject area of the manuscript. Editors follow best practices to avoid inappropriate or fraudulent reviewer selection.

If reviewer opinions are substantially divided, the Editor may seek additional expert evaluation before making a final decision.

Reviewers must disclose any potential conflicts of interest before accepting a review invitation. If a reviewer has a personal, professional, academic, or financial relationship that may affect objectivity, they must recuse themselves from the review process.

Editors also evaluate reviewer comments and citation suggestions to ensure that no bias, inappropriate self-citation, or metric manipulation is introduced into the review process.

CMB aims to provide a rigorous, fair, and timely editorial process while maintaining high standards of scientific and ethical evaluation.

Initial Editorial Assessment

Manuscripts are normally assessed by the Editor-in-Chief or Section Editors within 7–10 days of submission.

First Decision After Peer Review

For manuscripts sent to external review, the first editorial decision is normally expected within 4–6 weeks, depending on reviewer availability and the complexity of the manuscript.

Average Review Time

The average review process is expected to take approximately 6–8 weeks from submission to the first major editorial outcome. This timeline may vary for manuscripts requiring additional expert review, ethical clarification, or major revision.

Revision Review

Revised manuscripts are assessed after authors submit a detailed point-by-point response to reviewer comments. If substantial changes are made, the manuscript may be returned to the original reviewers for further evaluation.

Based on the reviewers’ reports and editorial assessment, one of the following decisions will be issued:

Accept

The manuscript is ready for publication.

Minor Revision

Small changes or clarifications are required before final consideration.

Major Revision

Significant technical, methodological, or conceptual improvements are required.

Reject

The manuscript does not meet the journal’s requirements for publication.

The journal does not currently publish a fixed acceptance rate. Editorial decisions are based on scientific quality, originality, methodological rigor, ethical compliance, relevance to the journal’s scope, and the recommendations of independent reviewers.

Acceptance-rate statistics may be published in the future once sufficient submission and editorial decision data are available.

When a revision is requested, authors must provide a detailed point-by-point response addressing all reviewer and editor comments.

If the revised manuscript includes substantial changes, the editor may return it to the original reviewers or invite additional reviewers for further evaluation.

Final publication decisions rest with the editorial board to ensure independence, consistency, and adherence to the highest scientific standards.

The Editor-in-Chief has final authority over all editorial decisions.

All submitted manuscripts, reviewer reports, editorial communications, and related materials are treated as confidential.

Unless the journal uses an open peer-review model, reviewer identities are protected. Editors are prohibited from using unpublished information or ideas from submitted manuscripts for their own research or personal advantage without written consent from the authors.

CMB 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, misunderstanding of the data, or failure to consider specific evidence presented in the manuscript.

Appeals must be submitted in writing and must include a detailed rebuttal letter. The rebuttal should address the reviewers’ and editors’ comments point by point and provide scientific evidence or clarification to support the authors’ position.

To ensure impartiality, appeals are reviewed by a senior editorial panel or an independent editor who was not involved in the initial decision.

The appeal 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 regarding editorial conduct, conflicts of interest, or suspected research misconduct are handled with appropriate discretion and in accordance with the protocols established by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).