At least two assessments
CIJFMR ordinarily seeks reports from at least two suitably qualified reviewers for a full research manuscript.
Home / Policies / Peer Review
Peer Review Policy
Independent assessment, protected identities and accountable editorial decisions.
Independent scholarly assessment
Critical review with clear responsibility.
Peer review informs the decision. The Journal, through its authorised editor, remains responsible for the final outcome.
CIJFMR uses double-blind peer review for research content. Authors submit one complete manuscript with accurate authorship records. The editorial office first examines scope, completeness, declarations and evident integrity concerns, then prepares and verifies a separate identity-protected review copy. Reviewers receive only the approved blinded copy and do not receive contributor records. Reviewers advise the editors; they do not decide publication. Editors consider the reports, the manuscript, conflicts of interest, and the quality of author responses before recording a reasoned decision. Identities and confidential material remain restricted according to role throughout the process.
Double-blind review begins with editorial screening
CIJFMR ordinarily uses double-blind peer review for research manuscripts. Authors upload one complete manuscript. Authorised editorial staff preserve that original, remove identifying information from a separate derivative, complete an anonymisation checklist and approve the blinded review copy.
Reviewers do not receive author identities or contributor records, authors do not receive reviewer identities, and reviewers must not attempt to identify authors. Anonymity reduces irrelevant influence, but cannot be guaranteed in every specialised field.
Before external review
- Fit with the published aims and scope
- Originality and prospective scholarly contribution
- Completeness, clarity and methodological appropriateness
- Required declarations and citation quality
- Editorial anonymisation and approval of the reviewer copy
- Apparent duplication, plagiarism or other integrity concerns
Editorial screening is not acceptance. A manuscript may be declined without external review when it is outside scope, materially incomplete, below basic scholarly standards or affected by a serious integrity concern.
Relevant expertise and disclosed independence
Editors select reviewers according to the manuscript's subject, method and disciplinary setting. Relevant expertise, publication or professional experience, availability and freedom from material conflicts are considered together.
Additional or replacement review
An editor may invite another reviewer when expertise is highly specialised, reports materially conflict, a reviewer becomes unavailable or a methodological opinion is needed.
Author suggestions, where invited, are advisory only. A reviewer must disclose recent collaboration, shared employment, supervision, financial interests, personal relationships, competing research or another circumstance that could reasonably affect impartiality.
Review the question, evidence and contribution
Originality
Does the work add a meaningful argument, finding, interpretation, method or application?
Relevance
Does it belong within the Journal's disciplinary or multidisciplinary remit?
Research design
Are the question, method, sources and analytical framework appropriately aligned?
Evidence
Are the analysis and conclusions supported without exaggeration?
Scholarship
Does the manuscript engage the relevant literature, authorities or data accurately?
Ethics and clarity
Are ethical responsibilities addressed and is the work organised for informed assessment?
Recommendations advise, editors decide
01
Accept
Suitable subject to ordinary editorial and production checks.
02
Minor revision
Limited corrections or clarifications are required.
03
Major revision
Substantial analysis, explanation or restructuring is required.
04
Revise and resubmit
Meaningful potential remains, but redevelopment is necessary before reconsideration.
05
Reject
The work is unsuitable or its central deficiencies cannot reasonably be resolved through revision.
Recommendations are advisory. The editor considers the manuscript, the reports, the author's response and all applicable policies. Conflicting reports may lead to clarification, an additional assessment, revision or a reasoned editorial decision. Outcomes are not determined by simple majority voting.
A revision request is an invitation, not an acceptance
Authors should return a revised manuscript and a point-by-point response. A recommendation need not be adopted where the author provides a reasoned scholarly explanation.
- Revisions may return to the original reviewers
- An additional specialist may be invited
- A handling editor may assess limited revisions directly
- Reviewer availability and manuscript complexity affect timing
- No acceptance or publication date is guaranteed
Standard reviewer periodSpecified in each invitation
Submission modelRolling, year-round
Confidential material remains protected
Reviewers and editors must not share unpublished files, exploit unpublished ideas, disclose confidential communications or contact authors outside the authorised process. Suspected plagiarism, fabrication, manipulated evidence, unethical research, citation manipulation or authorship irregularity must be reported privately to the editor.
Do not investigate independently. A reviewer identifies the concern and relevant evidence. The editor determines the appropriate next step under the publication-ethics process.
- Publication fees cannot influence review or decisions
- Institutional standing and academic seniority are irrelevant to merit
- Advertising and sponsorship remain separate from editorial judgement
- An editor with a conflict must transfer handling to an independent editor
Appeals, records and editorial-board submissions
An author may appeal where a material factual error, procedural irregularity or serious misunderstanding may have affected the outcome. The appeal must state specific grounds and provide supporting reasoning. Disagreement with criticism alone does not require reconsideration.
Review reports, correspondence and decision records may be retained for legitimate editorial, integrity and administrative purposes. A submission from an editor, board member or closely connected person receives no preferential treatment and must be assigned to an independent editor.
Commitment
Assessment should be critical, constructive and respectful, with attention to scholarly merit rather than personal characteristics, status or ideological agreement.
Continue reading
Prepare for an informed, confidential review.
Authors and reviewers should understand the applicable requirements before entering the editorial workflow.