JCMT undergoes single-blind peer review. The names of the reviewers are hidden from the author.
Peer review process:
1. The scientific editor first performs a search of the Web of Science, Google, PubMed and Crosscheck to determine its possible relevance to the journal’s audience and to make an initial assessment of originality and potential plagiarism academic misconduct related to the study and topical content. It will then be sent out for Editor-in-Chief’s review.
2. After Editor-in-Chief’s initial review, it will then be rejected or sent to an Associate Editor whose expertise is in line with the manuscript’s topic. The Associate Editor will send it out for external peer review. When the reviews (at least two independent reviews) have been received, the Associate Editor will consider the reviewers’ opinions and make a recommendation to accept, reject, or request a revision.
3. If the Associate Editor’s recommendation is for revision, the author must respond to each comment made by the reviewers and Associate Editor, and resubmit. The revised manuscript will be re-evaluated by the original handling editor, who will either make a decision or send the manuscript for further review prior to making a decision.
4. All manuscripts recommended for acceptance or rejection must undergo final review by the Editor-in-Chief.
5. The Editor-in-Chief’s decision is final. However, if authors dispute a decision, authors can write rebuttals where they address the reviewers’ comments point to point. The Editor-in-Chief may decide to seek the opinion of additional reviewers.