Peer Review Process
Journal of Clinical Evidence and Outcomes Research (JCEOR) strives to maintain the highest standards of research publication in terms of science, editing, and ethics via the peer review process.
Each paper submitted to the journal for publication is subject to editorial evaluation and independent peer review.
Editorial Evaluation of Manuscript
The manuscript is considered by the editorial board regarding the conformity of the manuscript to the scope and requirements of the journal in regard to the subject matter, ethics requirements, formatting, etc.
In case of a non-conformity of the manuscript to the stated requirements, it is either returned to the authors for correction or rejected at once.
Double-Blind Peer Review
At JCEOR, a double-blind peer-review process is used where both reviewers and authors remain anonymous. It guarantees impartiality and objectivity of the reviewing process.
A typical number of independent reviewers with adequate expertise in the subject matter is two for each eligible manuscript.
Criteria for Review
The criteria that reviewers use while evaluating the manuscripts include the following aspects:
- Originality and scientific contribution
- Clinical relevance and significance
- Methodology of research
- Data analysis and interpretation
- Ethical issues
- Presentation
- Conclusion validity
- References quality
Editorial decision
Depending on reviewers' suggestions, the Editor-in-Chief or handling editor will make one of the decisions described below:
- Accept
- Accept with minor changes
- Major revisions required
- Reject
Revised manuscripts have to incorporate reviewer's suggestions.
