Menu

Journal of Clinical and Applied Medical Sciences (JCAMS)

The Journal of Clinical and Applied Medical Sciences (JCAMS) follows a rigorous double-blind peer review system to maintain the highest standards of scientific quality, academic integrity, and ethical publishing. Peer reviewers serve a critical role in evaluating the scholarly merit, validity, and relevance of submitted manuscripts while ensuring confidentiality and professional ethics throughout the review process.

Double-Blind Peer Review

All manuscripts submitted to JCAMS are reviewed under a double-blind peer review model. Under this process, the identities of both authors and reviewers remain concealed from each other during the entire evaluation process. This approach promotes impartiality, minimizes bias, and supports objective scientific assessment.

Reviewers are expected to carefully follow the COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers and maintain ethical standards throughout the review process.

Criteria for Manuscript Evaluation

Reviewers are requested to evaluate manuscripts on the basis of the following parameters:

1. Novelty and Academic Contribution

  • Does the manuscript present original and meaningful research?
  • Does the study contribute valuable knowledge or clinical relevance to medical or allied health sciences?
  • Does the work offer innovative findings, approaches, or interpretations within the discipline?

2. Research Design and Methodology

  • Is the study design scientifically appropriate and well-structured?
  • Are the methods clearly explained and suitable for achieving the objectives of the study?
  • Are statistical analyses properly performed and adequately described?
  • Can the study be replicated based on the information provided?

3. Data Interpretation and Clinical Relevance

  • Are the results accurately analyzed and interpreted?
  • Are conclusions supported by the presented findings?
  • Is the clinical or practical significance of the study adequately discussed?
  • Are study limitations clearly acknowledged?

4. Ethical Standards and Compliance

  • For studies involving human participants or animals, is ethical approval clearly mentioned?
  • Have informed consent procedures been appropriately followed where applicable?
  • Are ethical guidelines and institutional protocols adequately addressed?
  • Have conflicts of interest and funding sources been properly disclosed?

5. Reporting Quality and Transparency

  • Does the manuscript follow recognized reporting guidelines such as CONSORT, STROBE, PRISMA, CARE, or relevant standards?
  • Is sufficient information provided regarding data availability, supplementary materials, or research transparency?
  • Are references, citations, tables, and figures appropriately presented?

6. Language, Structure, and Presentation

  • Is the manuscript written in clear, professional, and grammatically accurate English?
  • Is the content logically organized and easy to understand?
  • Are medical terminologies, abbreviations, and technical descriptions used appropriately?

7. Plagiarism and Publication Ethics

  • Is the manuscript free from plagiarism, duplicate publication, or unethical research practices?
  • Have all relevant sources and prior studies been properly cited?
  • Does the manuscript comply with accepted standards of publication ethics?

Confidentiality and Reviewer Conduct

The peer review process is strictly confidential. Reviewers must not share, distribute, discuss, or use manuscript content outside the scope of the review process.

If reviewers wish to seek expert opinion from a colleague, prior approval from the Editor-in-Chief must be obtained.

Reviewers must not disclose manuscript findings, author details (if identified), or review comments to any unauthorized individual before publication.

Reviewers are expected to complete their assessments within the assigned review timeline, generally within 2 to 3 weeks.

Use of AI-Assisted Technologies in Peer Review

Reviewers are prohibited from using generative AI tools or AI-assisted technologies for drafting, generating, or assisting peer review reports. The use of such tools may compromise manuscript confidentiality, originality, and ethical standards. All evaluations must be independently conducted by the assigned reviewer based on their own scientific expertise and professional judgment.

Professional and Ethical Responsibilities

Reviewers should:

  • Provide fair, objective, constructive, and respectful feedback
  • Avoid personal criticism or inappropriate language
  • Declare any potential conflicts of interest before accepting a review assignment
  • Decline reviews where impartiality cannot be maintained
  • Avoid suggesting unnecessary self-citations or biased references

Reviewer Recommendations

Reviewers are generally requested to recommend one of the following decisions:

  • Accept without revision
  • Minor revision
  • Major revision
  • Reject

In every case, reviewers should provide a detailed explanation supporting their recommendation to assist editors and authors during the editorial decision-making process.

Reviewer Recognition

JCAMS sincerely appreciates the valuable contributions of its reviewers in maintaining the scientific credibility and publication quality of the journal. Reviewers may request an official certificate of review and may also be acknowledged annually on the journal website or reviewer acknowledgment section, unless anonymity is specifically requested.

Contact

For queries related to the peer review process or to apply as a reviewer, please contact:

Editorial Office
Journal of Clinical and Applied Medical Sciences (JCAMS)
Email: editor.jcams@gmail.com