Editorial Process (Peer Review) – Current Clinical and Medical Education
The editorial and peer review process at Current Clinical and Medical Education ensures the publication of high-quality, rigorously reviewed scientific content. The process follows a structured pathway to maintain transparency, fairness, and scientific integrity.
Upon submission, the editorial team conducts an initial screening to ensure that the manuscript aligns with the journal’s scope and formatting guidelines. The manuscript is checked for:
Completeness of submission files and author information.
Compliance with ethical standards, including plagiarism detection.
Adherence to manuscript formatting requirements.
Potential conflicts of interest.
Manuscripts failing to meet the journal’s submission criteria may be returned to authors for modifications or desk-rejected.
The assigned editor evaluates the scientific merit, relevance, and originality of the manuscript. This step determines whether the manuscript should proceed to peer review or be rejected due to:
Lack of novelty or significance.
Methodological concerns.
Ethical issues or excessive similarity to previously published work.
Manuscripts deemed suitable for further evaluation are sent for peer review.
The editor selects at least two independent reviewers with expertise in the relevant subject area. Reviewers are invited based on:
Their research background and publication history.
Their lack of conflict of interest with the authors.
Their availability and willingness to review within the given timeframe.
Current Clinical and Medical Education follows a single-blind peer review process, meaning that the reviewers' identities are kept anonymous, but authors' identities are visible to reviewers.
Reviewers evaluate manuscripts based on:
Scientific soundness and methodological rigor.
Validity and reproducibility of data.
Clarity and coherence of the manuscript.
Ethical considerations.
They provide constructive feedback and make one of the following recommendations:
Accept: The manuscript is ready for publication with minimal or no revisions.
Minor Revisions: The manuscript requires minor modifications before acceptance.
Major Revisions: Significant changes are needed before reconsideration.
Reject: The manuscript does not meet the journal’s scientific or ethical standards.
The editor evaluates the reviewers' comments and makes a decision:
If both reviewers recommend acceptance, the editor proceeds with minimal revisions.
If one reviewer suggests rejection and another suggests revisions, the editor may seek an additional review or make a judgment based on the overall merit.
If revisions are required, authors receive reviewer comments with a deadline for resubmission.
Authors revise their manuscripts in response to reviewer comments and submit a point-by-point response letter detailing how the concerns were addressed. The revised manuscript may be:
Sent back to the original reviewers for reassessment.
Evaluated directly by the editor if changes are minor.
The editor makes a final decision based on the revised manuscript and reviewer feedback. Possible outcomes include:
Acceptance: The manuscript is approved for publication.
Further Revisions: Additional minor refinements are needed.
Rejection: The manuscript does not meet the journal’s quality or relevance standards.
Accepted manuscripts undergo:
Copyediting for language clarity and formatting.
Proofing by the authors before final publication.
Online publication in the next available journal issue.
Authors and readers can submit post-publication comments or request corrections if errors are found. Retractions or corrections follow the COPE (Committee on Publication Ethics) guidelines.
For more details, visit the journal’s website: CCME Journal. For editorial inquiries, contact: editor@amcmpub.com.