Peer review serves as the foundation of academic and scientific publishing, ensuring the integrity, credibility, and dependability of published research. At Content Majestic, we are dedicated to maintaining a meticulous and impartial evaluation process for all manuscript submissions.
Initially, each submission undergoes a technical assessment by the journal’s managing editor to confirm adherence to standard formatting requirements. Manuscripts that satisfy these criteria are forwarded to the Editor-in-Chief (EiC) for a determination regarding their suitability for peer review. Submissions deemed appropriate proceed to the peer review stage, while those that do not meet the standards are either returned to the authors for revisions or rejected.
Criteria for Reviewers
At Content Majestic, we uphold rigorous and ethical standards in manuscript evaluation. Reviewers are expected to provide timely and transparent assessments by COPE guidelines. To maintain the quality and integrity of the peer review process, all reviewers must meet the following criteria:
- Hold an academic or industry affiliation
- Utilize an institutional email address
- Possess a PhD degree in the relevant field
- Demonstrate a strong publication record
- Ensure no conflicts of interest with the authors
- Have no prior association with the authors
Diverse Peer Reviewers
Fostering diversity among peer reviewers is integral to our commitment to maintaining excellence in the rigorous peer review process. By involving reviewers from a broad spectrum of backgrounds, disciplines, and demographics, we strengthen the integrity and impartiality of our system. At CM, the editorial team emphasizes the inclusion of reviewers from various geographical regions, ensuring a holistic and equitable evaluation of submissions.
Peer Review Framework
All journals adhere to a single-blind peer review system, wherein reviewers’ identities are concealed from authors. Research articles, reviews, and other manuscript types submitted to CM are meticulously assessed, and typically conducted by two to three independent reviewers. Additionally, every manuscript is subjected to a thorough plagiarism check using Turnitin software to identify any overlapping or similar content during the in-house editorial review.
Submissions to CM are initially evaluated for completeness before being reviewed by the Editor-in-Chief, who determines their suitability for the peer review process. In cases where the Editor-in-Chief is an author or has a conflict of interest concerning a manuscript, another member of the Editorial Board is designated to oversee the review process. The Academic Editor whether the Editor-in-Chief or an Editorial Board member free of conflicts considers peer review reports when making preliminary and final decisions. However, they are not obligated to accept reviewers’ recommendations. Significant concerns raised by any single peer reviewer or the Editor may lead to the rejection of the manuscript. Authors are provided with detailed peer review feedback alongside the editorial decision.
Manuscripts such as Editorials, Book Reviews, and Commentaries, which do not involve primary research or secondary analysis of such research, may be accepted without undergoing peer review.
The Selection of Reviewers
The Editor-in-Chief assumes a critical role in the selection of peer reviewers. Generally, the Editor-in-Chief nominates 3-4 reviewers from the Editorial Board, Reviewer Panel, or recognized subject-matter experts. Furthermore, authors of the manuscript may recommend 2-3 potential reviewers to streamline the review process. Although these recommendations are not obligatory, they frequently help to expedite the review. Authors may also indicate specific reviewers they prefer to exclude during the submission phase. In certain circumstances, the Editorial Office identifies additional qualified reviewers by consulting esteemed databases such as PubMed, Scopus, or Web of Science, ensuring the reviewers’ expertise corresponds with the manuscript’s scope and focus.
Invitation to Reviewers
Reviewers with expertise closely matching the manuscript’s scope are invited to engage in the review process. They are requested to confirm their availability to review the complete manuscript within the stipulated time frame and are provided with the title and abstract of the manuscript for their consideration. Reviewers have the following options:
- Accept the invitation within the specified timeline
- Accept the invitation while requesting an extension of the timeline
- Decline the invitation promptly
- Decline the invitation and recommend alternative reviewers
Reviewer’s Agreement
Upon accepting the invitation to review a manuscript, the reviewer will receive the complete document shortly thereafter, with a stipulated deadline of two weeks from the date of invitation. If the reviewer anticipates any prior commitments that may hinder timely completion, it is recommended that they promptly request an extension. Generally, the review process is expected to be completed within three weeks from the manuscript’s submission date.
Reporting Guidelines
All evaluations and comments on the submitted manuscript must be provided through the designated link in the OJS system. Critical feedback and assessments regarding the paper’s methodology and findings must always be submitted in English. Reviewers are responsible for ensuring that the manuscript complies with the relevant guidelines outlined for authors, which include the following:
Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT):
For randomized controlled trials.
TREND: For non-randomized trials
PRISMA: For systematic reviews and meta-analyses
CARE: For case reports
STROB: For observational studies
STREGA: For studies involving genetic associations
STARD and TRIPOD: For diagnostic accuracy studies
COREQ: For qualitative research
ARRIVE: For research involving animal experiments
MOOSE: For meta-analyses of observational studies
EQUATOR: For an appropriate checklist and reporting guidelines
Manuscript Evaluation
Appointed reviewers undertake a thorough assessment of the manuscript to ensure its alignment with the journal’s scope, clarity, comprehensiveness, and overall quality. They also evaluate the visual components, the coherence of the manuscript’s sections, and the accuracy and integrity of its references. Each section of the manuscript must be reviewed independently, with detailed comments provided for both the authors and the editors. Feedback directed to the editors remains confidential and is not disclosed to the authors.
Final Recommendation
Based on their evaluation, reviewers are obligated to provide a conclusive recommendation for each manuscript. The potential outcomes include:
- Accept with Minor Revisions
- Accept with Major Revisions
- Reject with Suggestion for Resubmission
- Reject Without Resubmission
These recommendations are instrumental in determining the manuscript’s final disposition. Review reports are submitted to the Editor-in-Chief or the managing editor, who consolidates the key suggestions for improvement and communicates them to the authors. Manuscripts requiring substantial revisions will be subjected to re-evaluation by the same reviewers following the submission of the revised version. If any ethical issues or potential misconduct arise, reviewers must immediately suspend the review process and inform the Editorial Office for further action.
Benefits for Reviewers
We hold the dedication and voluntary efforts of our reviewers in the highest regard as they play a critical role in the peer review process. To honor their contributions, the following benefits are provided:
Certificate of Appreciation: Issued upon the successful completion of each peer review.
APC Discounts: Offered after the reviewer has completed assessments for a minimum of three manuscripts.
Editorial Board Invitations: Reviewers demonstrating exceptional performance over a one-year period may be invited to join the Editorial Board.
Service Discounts: Exclusive reductions are available for services such as graphic enhancement and language editing.
Conflict Of Interest
Reviewers are required to promptly disclose any potential conflicts of interest to the journal’s editor via email. Examples of such conflicts include, but are not limited to:
Affiliated Conflict: The reviewer is employed by the same institution as one of the authors.
Collaborative Conflict: The reviewer has co-authored, collaborated, co-founded, or maintained academic relationships with any of the authors within the past five years.
Personal Relationship Conflict: The reviewer has a personal connection, competition, or antagonistic relationship with any of the authors.
Financial Conflict of Interest: The reviewer stands to gain or lose financially from the publication of the manuscript.
Non-Financial Conflict: The reviewer’s impartiality may be influenced by political, religious, ideological, or academic beliefs.
Disclosure of Conflict: Reviewers must report any actual or perceived conflicts of interest that could compromise their objectivity in evaluating the submitted manuscript.
Confidentiality Policy
CM upholds the highest standards of confidentiality throughout the manuscript review process, ensuring the safeguarding of authors’ intellectual property and professional reputations. Reviewers and editors are strictly forbidden from disclosing any details regarding the manuscript, its review status, or feedback without obtaining prior consent. The identities of reviewers are maintained in strict anonymity, and manuscripts must not be copied or shared without explicit authorization from the editor. Additionally, any public discussion or usage of an author’s ideas before publication is strictly not allowed. This stringent policy underscores CM’s strong commitment to protecting authors’ rights and maintaining the integrity of the peer review process.
Handling of Peer-Review Fraud
To ensure the integrity of the journal and the scholarly work it disseminates, maintaining a robust peer review process is paramount. Strict adherence to COPE guidelines is implemented to prevent any manipulation or misconduct within the peer review process. The established procedures for addressing incidents of peer-review fraud are as follows:
If suspected during peer review:[COPE RECOMMENDED PROTOCOL]
If suspected after publication:[COPE RECOMMENDED PROTOCOL]
Reviewer Citation Manipulation
Reviewer citation manipulation constitutes an unethical practice wherein reviewers encourage authors to cite sources that are irrelevant to the subject matter under review, primarily to enhance their own citation metrics. In order to uphold the integrity of the peer review process, reviewers are strongly urged to recommend only those references that are directly relevant to the article being assessed.
Such behavior undermines the quality and impartiality of scientific publications, which the peer review process seeks to preserve. Editors are encouraged to follow the COPE guidelines in the event that citation manipulation is identified.
Reviewer Registration
Should you wish to become a reviewer for CM, we kindly invite you to submit your application by completing the reviewers’ registration form. Your profile will be evaluated by the Editor, and should it meet the journal’s requirements, you will be extended an invitation to review articles.