Peer review is the foundation of the Journal's credibility. Every research article, review article, short communication and case study submitted to CIJFMR passes through three stages of assessment: a plagiarism check, an editorial guideline review (Review 1) and double-blind peer review (Review 2), in which reviewers do not know the identity of the authors and authors do not know the identity of the reviewers. Book reviews are assessed by a member of the editorial board.
1. Principles
- Merit alone. Manuscripts are assessed only on their scholarly merit, without regard to the authors' identity, institution, nationality, gender, religion, caste, political views or ability to pay.
- Independence. The editorial process is separate from the Publisher's commercial functions. Payment and waiver information never reaches reviewers.
- Confidentiality. Manuscripts under review are confidential documents.
- Human judgement. Editors take every decision. Software reports and reviewer recommendations inform decisions but never decide them.
- Transparency. Authors receive the reasons for every decision, together with the reviewer's comments after peer review.
2. The review process
2.1 Plagiarism check
The editorial office checks every manuscript with similarity-detection and AI-content reports. A similarity index below 20% and AI-generated content below 25% normally pass; a manuscript slightly above either limit is returned for correction; a similarity index above 25% normally leads to rejection. An editor reviews each report before any decision.
2.2 Review 1: editorial guideline check
An editor checks scope, completeness, word limit, structure, citation style, anonymisation and declarations. A manuscript may be returned for correction, or declined if it falls outside the scope of the Journal, lacks a clear research question or method, makes no original contribution, or falls below basic standards of scholarship or language. The editor gives reasons.
2.3 Review 2: double-blind peer review
The editor sends the anonymised manuscript to at least one independent reviewer with expertise in the subject and, where possible, in the method. Where the report is inconclusive, the reviewer recommends it, or the subject requires it, the editor invites a further reviewer. Reviewers are drawn from the Journal's reviewer panel and the wider scholarly community. The editor does not invite a reviewer who:
- works at the same institution as any author;
- has co-authored with any author in the last three years;
- supervises, or is supervised by, any author; or
- has any other personal, professional or financial relationship with an author that could create a conflict of interest.
Authors may ask, in the "Note to the editor" box of the submission form, that specific persons not review their manuscript, with reasons. The editor considers such requests but is not bound by them. Reviewers normally return their reports within 14 to 21 days.
2.4 Decision
The editor considers the report and decides. Authors receive the decision together with the reviewer's comments, without the reviewer's identity.
2.5 Revision and re-review
Authors upload a revised manuscript through the private link in the decision email, with a point-by-point response to the reviewer in the note box. The revision returns to the reviewer. The Journal normally allows no more than two rounds of major revision.
3. Review criteria
- Relevance: fit with the aims and scope of the Journal.
- Originality: the contribution the manuscript makes to existing knowledge.
- Research question and objectives: whether they are clearly stated and significant.
- Methodology: whether the method suits the question and is described in enough detail to be evaluated.
- Analysis and argument: depth, coherence and rigour, and whether the conclusions follow from the analysis.
- Literature and sources: engagement with current scholarship and use of primary sources where they exist.
- Accuracy of references: whether citations are accurate, complete and consistent.
- Ethics: compliance with ethical standards for research involving people and data.
- Clarity and structure: quality of writing, organisation and presentation.
4. Possible decisions
| Decision | Meaning |
|---|---|
| Accept | The manuscript is ready for publication, subject only to copy-editing. |
| Minor revision | Limited changes are needed. Due within 14 days. |
| Major revision | Substantial changes and further review are needed. Due within 30 days. |
| Reject | The manuscript is not suitable for publication in the Journal. |
5. Editors' own submissions
Editors and editorial board members may submit their own work to CIJFMR. Such manuscripts are handled entirely by another editor with no conflict of interest, and the submitting editor has no access to the review records. Submissions by the Publisher's officers follow the same procedure.
6. Special issues and guest editors
Manuscripts in special issues meet the same review standard as regular submissions. Guest editors cannot handle manuscripts by themselves or by colleagues with whom they have a conflict of interest. The Editor-in-Chief retains final authority over every special issue decision.
7. Responsibilities of reviewers
- Accept only manuscripts within their expertise that they can review on time.
- Declare any conflict of interest and decline the invitation where one exists.
- Keep the manuscript and the review confidential, and do not share, cite or use the unpublished work.
- Do not upload the manuscript, or any part of it, to generative AI tools or other third-party services.
- Do not attempt to identify the authors.
- Give objective, constructive and courteous comments supported by reasons.
- Alert the editor to suspected plagiarism, duplicate publication, data fabrication or other ethical concerns.
- Do not ask authors to cite the reviewer's own work unless it is genuinely necessary.
Detailed guidance appears in the Guidelines for reviewers.
8. Responsibilities of editors
- Decide on scholarly merit alone.
- Declare conflicts of interest and step aside from any manuscript where one exists.
- Protect the anonymity of authors and reviewers.
- Keep fees and payments separate from editorial decisions.
- Give authors clear and reasoned decisions.
- Act on credible allegations of misconduct under the Publication ethics and malpractice statement.
9. Timelines
The Journal aims to give authors a decision after peer review within four to six weeks of submission. These are targets, not guarantees. CIJFMR will publish its actual median times to first decision and to publication once enough manuscripts have completed the process. The Journal does not offer paid or guaranteed fast-track review.
10. Appeals
Authors who believe a decision rests on a factual error, a misunderstanding of the manuscript or a breach of this policy may appeal under the Complaints and appeals policy.
11. Recognition of reviewers
The Journal values the time reviewers give. With their consent, reviewers may be named in an annual acknowledgement of reviewers, and they may record their reviewing activity on ORCID or similar services without disclosing the manuscript.