Peer-review policy

All research articles, published by JRCM undergo a thorough peer review process (double-blind). This usually involves review by three peer reviewers. The following scheme illustrates the editorial workflow of JRCM:

  • The Editorial office technically assesses the submissions to ensure the adherence to the policies of TUOMS Press, including the ethical and language requirements.
  • Submissions are then evaluated by the Editor-in-Chief for the scope, and if approved, they are assigned to an editor for scientific evaluation.
  • The assigned editor invites additional experts to review the submitted manuscript. All submissions are reviewed by three independent reviewers. The Journal of Research in Clinical Medicine (JRCM) follows a double-blinded peer review process.
  • After evaluations, the editor makes one of the following decisions based on the reviewers’ comments and suggestions:
    1. Accepting without revision
    2. Minor revision needed
    3. Major revision needed
    4. Rejecting
  • Once a revision is requested, the authors have 6 weeks to revise the manuscript and provide a point-by-point response to the reviewers’ comments and suggestions.

Reviewers should consult our "For reviewers" page for more information.