Editor roles and responsibilities
Editors of the Journal of Clinical Practice and Research are responsiblefor assessing the scope and quality of each submitted manuscript and making a recommendation based on the peer review results. The editorial board is collectively responsible for ensuring that the journal publishes high-quality research. One the most important tasks of an editor is to decide whether a manuscript merits publication in Journal of Clinical Practice and Research.
Submission, screening, and editorial assignment
Manuscripts are submitted to Journal of Clinical Practice and Research through an online system and the entire editorial process of manuscript review is conducted using the journal’s online manuscript tracking system. When a manuscript is submitted for publication, the manuscript is checked by the journal’s editorial office to ensure that the files are complete and that the relevant metadata are in order. Once this screening phase is complete, manuscripts are then assigned to a senior editorial board member, either the editor-in-chief, or one of a select team of associate/section editors. Any manuscript found to be unsuitable may be rejected immediately. The membership of the editorial board is provided on each journal’s website.
Acceptable articles are sent to editors for formal peer review. Please refer to Journal of Clinical Practice and Research peer review flow chart at the end of this section.
Management of articles
Manuscripts are managed through an online system. Editors receive an email when they are invited to assess a new manuscript.
Journal of Clinical Practice and Research team assigns manuscripts based on an editor’s field of study and current workload. Editors should be comfortable with the topic of the manuscript, but an in-depth understanding is not essential; it is the role of the peer reviewers to assess the technical details. However, if an editor finds that the content of a manuscript falls wholly outside their area of expertise, they should decline the assignment. Although we select our editors carefully, if an editor observes even the appearance of a conflict of interest (e.g., they work at the same institution as one of the authors or are working on a competitive project), they should withdraw.
On receiving a manuscript, editors should ascertain if it is potentially suitable for publication. They should consider whether the article suits the scientific scope of the journal, as well as the basic quality of the article. Submissions failing this evaluation should be rejected immediately. All other articles should be sent for formal peer review.
Recruiting peer reviewers
Editors should invite at least two reviewers to assess the manuscript. We encourage editors to invite reviewers of their choosing. The web page of Journal of Clinical Practice and Research (www.jcpres.com) may also provide reviewer suggestions.
There are many important factors to consider when selecting a peer reviewer:
Are they impartial?
Are they qualified?
Reviewers should have significant experience in the relevant field. Editors can assess a reviewer’s experience by looking at their publication history. Acceptable reviewers may range from post-doctoral researchers through emeritus professors. Finding peer reviewers is not always easy, as appropriate candidates may not have the time to accept your invitation.
Each reviewer, having read and assessed the manuscript, will provide a report with one of the following recommendations:
The editor’s decision depends on the reviewer reports and their own evaluation of the manuscript. The editor must have at least two reviewer reports before making a final decision. Based on the editor’s assessment and the reviewer suggestions, one of the following decisions will be logged into the system:
Assessment of the reviewers’ recommendations and evaluation of a manuscript is not always straightforward. If a majority of reviewers suggest rejection of a manuscript, then it must be rejected. However, if even one reviewer notices a fundamental technical flaw and suggests rejection, it can warrant rejection of a manuscript despite positive recommendations from the other reviewers.
The Journal of Clinical Practice and Research publishes original works; therefore, replicative or highly derivative work should be rejected. The perceived importance and potential impact of a manuscript should not be a primary cause for rejection, though papers should present original research and add to scientific understanding.
If the reviewers raise insurmountable problems, for example, if the experiments are critically flawed or the results have been presented previously, then the editor should reject the manuscript.
All manuscripts should be kept completely confidential. Editors may not use any of the insights until after publication.
The Journal of Clinical Practice and Research uses a double-blind approach to peer review: Reviewers do not know the authors’ names and the authors do not know the reviewers’ names.
The Journal of Clinical Practice and Research editorial office checks manuscripts and the publication record of the authors for plagiarism and other types of research misconduct.
If an editor becomes aware of any ethics issues related to a manuscript, including plagiarism, authorship disputes, duplicate or redundant submission, or manipulation of data and figures, they should contact the editorial office of the journal at [email protected].
All research articles, brief reports, review articles, case reports, and history of medicine articles published in the Journal of Clinical Practice and Research undergo full peer review by independent editors and reviewers.
Letters to the editor and, when applicable, images, are usually assessed by the editor who handled the original article and that editor will decide whether to publish the new article. In some cases, they will make this decision after having consulted peer reviewers.