Peer-Review Process

Articles must be submitted through the journal’s online submission system. Manuscripts sent via e-mail will not be considered for review.

The peer-review process at Cerasus Journal of Medicine (CJM) is designed to ensure the scientific quality, originality, and ethical integrity of all manuscripts. The journal employs a double-masked review system, in which the identities of both authors and reviewers are concealed throughout the evaluation process. This approach promotes objectivity and minimizes potential bias.

Initial Editorial Assessment

All submissions undergo an initial screening by the editorial team to determine whether the manuscript:

Fits the scope of the journal,

Meets basic scientific and ethical standards,

Conforms to the journal’s formatting and submission requirements,

Shows sufficient originality and methodological quality.

Manuscripts that do not meet these criteria may be returned to the authors without external review.

Double-Blind Peer Review

Manuscripts that pass the initial assessment are assigned to at least two independent reviewers with expertise in the relevant field. Under the double-anonymized system:

Authors do not know the identity of the reviewers,

Reviewers do not know the identity of the authors,

All identifying information is removed from the manuscript before it is sent for review.

The reviewer selection is based on academic expertise, publication history, and absence of conflicts of interest.

Reviewer Evaluation Criteria

Reviewers are asked to provide a comprehensive and constructive assessment of the manuscript, addressing:

Scientific validity and methodological rigor,

Originality and contribution to the field,

Accuracy and clarity of data presentation,

Ethical compliance (including human/animal research approval when applicable),

Relevance and adequacy of the literature review,

Logical structure and clarity of writing,

Appropriateness of conclusions in relation to findings.

Reviewers also provide a final recommendation, choosing one of the following:

Minor Revision

Major Revision

Reject

Revision Process

If revisions are requested, authors must:

Address each reviewer's comment clearly and systematically,

Submit a detailed response letter outlining the changes made,

Provide a revised version of the manuscript with tracked changes or highlighted modifications.

Revised manuscripts may be sent back to the same reviewers for re-evaluation, depending on the extent of the revisions.

Final Decision

The final publication decision rests with the Editor-in-Chief or the assigned handling editor, who considers:

Reviewer recommendations,

Quality and timeliness of the revisions,

Overall scientific merit of the manuscript.

Decisions are communicated to the authors through the journal's online submission system.

Confidentiality and Ethical Standards

All submissions and reviewer reports are treated as confidential documents. Reviewers are expected to:

Maintain confidentiality,

Avoid using manuscript information for personal or academic advantage,

Notify the editor of any potential ethical issues or conflicts of interest.

CJM adheres to the COPE Ethical Guidelines for addressing concerns about misconduct, including plagiarism, data manipulation, or non-compliance with ethical standards.

Conflicts of Interest

Editors and reviewers must decline involvement if they have:

A personal or academic relationship with the authors,

Financial or professional conflicts,

Any interest that could compromise objectivity.

Authors must disclose all potential conflicts of interest during submission.

Average Review Timeline

The journal aims to complete the peer-review process within:

Initial editorial screening: 5–10 days,

External review: 5–7 weeks,

Revision assessment: depending on the complexity of revisions.

Timelines may vary based on reviewer availability and the nature of the manuscript.

Appeals and Complaints

Authors who disagree with an editorial decision may submit a formal written appeal, provided that the appeal includes a clear and reasoned explanation. An appeal may be considered in cases where:

The authors believe that the reviewers have made a factual error,

Important data or arguments were misunderstood or overlooked,

The decision appears inconsistent with the journal’s editorial or ethical policies.

An editorial decision based on negative reviewer reports can be appealed; however, appeals must present substantive justification rather than merely disagreeing with the reviewers’ opinions.

All appeals are evaluated by a senior editor or by an independent academic expert who was not involved in the original review process. The journal does not guarantee that an appeal will result in a change of decision, but it ensures that every appeal is assessed fairly, transparently, and without bias.

Commitment to Fair and Rigorous Evaluation

CJM is committed to ensuring a transparent, fair, and academically rigorous peer-review process. By upholding high standards of review ethics and scientific integrity, the journal aims to contribute to the advancement of medical knowledge and support the global research community.

Last Update Time: 12/9/25

INDEXING & ABSTRACTING & ARCHIVING

Cerasus Journal of Medicine, hosted by Dergipark, is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.