Journal of Clinical Medicine Current Research

Editor Guidelines for Journal of Clinical Medicine

As an editor of the Journal of Clinical Medicine (JCM), your role is vital in ensuring the quality, integrity, and scientific rigor of the articles published. These guidelines are designed to help editors manage the peer review process, uphold ethical standards, and contribute to the journal’s mission to publish high-quality clinical research and reviews.

1. Editorial Responsibilities

1.1 Decision Making

• Editors are responsible for making final decisions on whether a manuscript should be accepted, revised, or rejected based on peer reviews, relevance to the journal’s scope, and scientific rigor.
• Decisions must be based solely on the quality of the research, its scientific merit, and its potential to advance clinical medicine. Editorial decisions should not be influenced by personal, financial, or political interests.

1.2 Fair and Transparent Review Process

• Editors must ensure that the review process is fair, confidential, and unbiased. The peer review process should be double-blind, with both authors and reviewers unaware of each other’s identities.
• Editors must make every effort to provide authors with constructive feedback that improves the quality of their manuscripts.

1.3 Confidentiality

• Editors must maintain strict confidentiality regarding submitted manuscripts. Manuscripts should not be shared with anyone other than reviewers, editorial board members, or journal staff involved in the publication process.

1.4 Ethical Oversight

• Editors must ensure that all submissions adhere to ethical guidelines, including the handling of human and animal research, informed consent, and conflict of interest disclosures.
• Any suspected ethical violations, including plagiarism or data fabrication, should be thoroughly investigated and addressed according to the journal’s policies.

2. Peer Review Process

2.1 Selecting Reviewers

• Editors are responsible for selecting qualified and impartial peer reviewers. Reviewers should be experts in the field of the submitted manuscript and have no conflicts of interest.
• Each manuscript should be reviewed by at least two independent reviewers for Original Research articles, Reviews, and Meta-analyses. For shorter articles (e.g., Case Reports, Short Communications), a single reviewer may suffice.

2.2 Ensuring Review Quality

• Reviewers should provide clear, constructive, and detailed feedback. Editors should ensure that reviewers focus on:
  • Scientific quality: Are the hypotheses sound? Are the methods appropriate and robust? Are the conclusions supported by the data?
  • Relevance to clinical practice: Does the manuscript contribute meaningful insights into clinical care or healthcare systems?
  • Clarity and structure: Is the manuscript well-written and logically organized?
  • Ethical considerations: Is the study conducted ethically? Are patient data anonymized where required?

2.3 Managing Conflicts of Interest

• Editors must ensure that reviewers and authors disclose any potential conflicts of interest that could affect the objectivity of the review.
• In case of a conflict, an editor may either invite an alternate reviewer or make the decision independently based on the available evidence.

2.4 Ensuring Timeliness

• Editors must ensure that peer reviews are conducted promptly. Authors should receive reviewer feedback within 4–6 weeks of submission, with clear deadlines set for reviewers.

3. Ethical Standards

3.1 Human and Animal Research

• Editors must ensure that all studies involving human participants or animals adhere to ethical guidelines and have obtained the necessary ethical approval from institutional review boards (IRBs) or ethics committees.
• Manuscripts should include statements confirming that informed consent was obtained from participants or that patient data was anonymized.

3.2 Plagiarism and Research Misconduct

• Editors must check for potential plagiarism and duplicate publication using plagiarism detection tools. Submissions found to have plagiarized content or fabricated data should be rejected, and the author(s) may be subject to further investigation.
• Editors should investigate any allegations of research misconduct and take appropriate action, including retraction if necessary.

3.3 Conflict of Interest

• Editors must ensure that authors, reviewers, and editorial board members disclose all conflicts of interest. These should be managed transparently to avoid any bias in the editorial process.
• Editors themselves should declare any personal, financial, or academic conflicts when handling manuscripts.

3.4 Data Availability

• Editors must encourage authors to make their underlying data available to the public, whenever possible, to promote transparency and reproducibility. If data cannot be made publicly available for ethical or privacy reasons, authors should provide a clear explanation in the manuscript.

4. Manuscript Handling

4.1 Initial Assessment

• When a manuscript is received, editors must perform an initial assessment to determine whether it meets the basic criteria for the journal, including relevance to the journal’s scope, quality of the writing, and adherence to submission guidelines.
• Manuscripts that do not meet these criteria should be rejected without sending for peer review, and authors should be informed with constructive feedback.

4.2 Revision Process

• For manuscripts that require revisions (either minor or major), editors should guide authors to ensure that they address reviewers’ comments thoroughly.
• Editors must assess the revised manuscript to ensure that the revisions have been adequately made before making a final decision on acceptance.

4.3 Final Decision

• After reviewing the peer reviewers’ feedback, the editor will make a final decision on whether to accept, revise, or reject the manuscript.
  • Acceptance: If a manuscript meets the journal's standards and there are no major concerns, the editor will accept it for publication.
  • Revision: If revisions are required, the editor will communicate the required changes to the authors and provide a deadline for resubmission.
  • Rejection: If the manuscript does not meet the journal's criteria or contains significant flaws, the editor will reject it and provide constructive feedback to the authors.

4.4 Handling Appeals

• Editors should be prepared to handle appeals from authors who disagree with the rejection decision. An appeal should be based on valid reasons, and the editor may choose to have the manuscript reviewed by additional reviewers if necessary.

5. Publication Ethics and Integrity

5.1 Retraction and Correction

• Editors must be vigilant about retraction or correction of articles that have significant errors, ethical violations, or findings that cannot be replicated. Retractions and corrections should be clearly communicated to the journal’s readers and indexed appropriately.
• If any ethical misconduct (e.g., plagiarism, falsification of data) is identified after publication, the editor must initiate an investigation in collaboration with the author(s) and relevant institutions.

5.2 Author Contributions

• Editors must ensure that the contributions of all authors are clearly stated, including those involved in study design, data analysis, manuscript writing, and funding acquisition.
• Any guest authorship or honorary authorship should be carefully scrutinized to ensure that all listed authors have made substantial contributions to the manuscript.

5.3 Transparency and Openness

• Editors should promote transparency in the editorial process, ensuring that authors are fully informed of the status of their submission and the reasons behind editorial decisions.
• Encourage authors to openly share their data, methods, and protocols to foster transparency and scientific rigor.

6. Communication with Authors

6.1 Clear Communication

• Editors should ensure that communication with authors is clear, respectful, and constructive. Provide authors with feedback from reviewers in a manner that helps them improve their manuscript.
• If a manuscript requires substantial revision, editors should outline the necessary changes clearly and provide guidance on how to address the reviewers’ comments.

6.2 Handling Conflicts or Disputes

• In cases where there is a conflict between the reviewers and authors, editors should mediate the situation impartially and transparently, ensuring that the journal's standards are upheld.

7. Ongoing Professional Development

• Editors are encouraged to stay informed about the latest trends, research methodologies, and ethical standards in publishing. Participation in workshops, webinars, and conferences related to academic publishing is strongly encouraged to maintain editorial skills and knowledge.

8. Contact Information

For editorial inquiries, conflicts, or questions, please contact:

Email: editor@ clinicalmedicinecr.com

Website: www.clinicalmedicinecr.com