CMC’s peer review policy is designed to ensure the highest levels of scientific quality and excellence.
To this end, CMC’s reviewers are carefully selected from among the world’s leading specialists in the relevant fields and subfields. Upon receipt, articles submitted to the journal are also carefully screened by the Editorial Office to ensure compliance with scientific ethics.
CMC’s peer review policy is also innovative, offering authors and reviewers a hybrid system combining classic single-blind evaluation with open peer review.
The entire peer review process is carried out as quickly as possible.
The peer review process works as follows:
Step 1 – Receipt of an article – 15 days: The Editorial Office will initially assess the article, rejecting it if it falls outside the scope of the journal, does not meet the minimum quality standards required for a scientific publication, or violates the fundamental principles of scientific ethics, such as conflicts of interest, plagiarism, or excessive use of AI. The editorial team will respond within 15 days regarding whether the text should be rejected or undergo peer review.
Step 2 – Deposit of the preprint: If the article successfully passes step 1, it is immediately deposited as a preprint on the journal’s platform and assigned a DOI. After the peer review process is complete, the preprint will be removed from the platform.
Step 3 – Review by the Editorial Board: The article will be reviewed by members of the Editorial Board, who will select at least two reviewers to whom the article will be submitted. The reviewers will then have one week to accept or decline the review.
Step 4 – Peer review:
The article is sent to reviewers who have agreed to review it. The authors must give the reviewers access to their data to facilitate the review. The reviewers must sign a confidentiality agreement to keep the data secret during the peer review process.
CMC operates an Open Peer Review System, displaying the names of the reviewers and their ORCID numbers on the platform. Their reports are published on the platform and assigned a DOI. Authors’ responses to the reviewers’ reports are also published on the platform. Additionally, a comment section using Hypothesis is open to the scientific community throughout the review process. Researchers who identify themselves using their ORCID number can comment on preprints, reviewers’ reports, and revised versions of articles. The discussion closes after the final version of the article is received or the article is rejected.
CMC is committed to ensuring that the peer review process is carried out as quickly as possible to the highest scientific standards.
Step 5 – Receipt of reviewers’ reports: The article will be accepted, with or without a request for revisions, or rejected. CMC is committed to ensuring that authors receive the reports from the reviewers as soon as they are received.
Step 6 – Authors’ responses to reviewers’ reports: Authors have 15 days to respond to the reviewers’ reports. These responses are published on the journal platform.
Step 7 – Final version of the article: Authors will have one month (30 days) to write the final version of their article, taking into account the reviewers’ reports and discussions with the community on Hypothesis. This final version will be deposited on the journal’s platform. Meanwhile, authors must provide a link to a public repository containing the open data used in the article.