Peer Review Process

The peer-review process is double blinded; that is, the reviewers not know who the authors of the manuscript are, and also the authors do not have access to the information of who the peer reviewers are. We arranged this method in pendar manuscript tracking system by get title page (contain full authors information) and manuscript file (without any authors information). All process in JCEMA manuscript tracking system followed by email and sms between all involved roles and also all steps.

 

  • Article Submission: The article is submitted to the JCEMA by the corresponding or submitting author. Typically, this is done using an online system.
  • Structural Assessment: The Exudative Director compares the article's structure and organization to the journal's Author Guidelines to ensure that it has all of the appropriate sections and stylizations. At this time, there is no assessment of the article's quality.
  • Editor-in-Chief Review and Processing: The Editor-in-Chief reviews the article to ensure that it is acceptable for the journal and that it is sufficiently unique and intriguing. Otherwise, the article may be dismissed without further evaluation.  
  • Plagiarism Checkup: The article is examined for similarity results by Ithenticate at this stage; if the similarity results are less than 20%, the article is accepted for reviewer assignment; otherwise, the article is rejected owing to similarity findings. 
  • Reviewer Invites: The Editor-in-Chief extends invitations to people he or she thinks would be good reviewers. If necessary, further invites are sent out when answers are received, until the needed number of acceptances is reached (two accepted reviewer decision).
  • Invitation Response: Potential reviewers evaluate the invitation in light of their own knowledge, conflicts of interest, and availability. They can then choose to accept or decline.  
  • The review is completed: The reviewer schedules time to read the material many times. The initial read is used to develop an impression of the work. If severe flaws are discovered at this point, the reviewer may decide to reject the article without further investigation. Otherwise, they will read the text many times more, taking notes in order to compile a comprehensive point-by-point evaluation. The review is then sent to the journal, along with a suggestion to accept or reject it – or a request for change (typically marked as major or minor) before it is reviewed.
  • The Editor-in-Chief of the Journal Evaluates the Reviews: Before reaching a final decision, the Editor-in-Chief of the Journal evaluates all of the returned reviews. If the reviews are significantly different, the editor may request a third reviewer to provide a second viewpoint before reaching a decision. 
  • First and foremost, the Editor-in-Chief sends the author a decision email that includes any relevant reviewer comments. The author does not know who the reviewer is (s). 
  • Author Submits Revised Manuscript: The author should make the modifications requested by the reviewer and highlight them in red or yellow shadow.
  • Final Decision: If the article is accepted, the author must pay the publishing charge, and the piece will be sent to the page designer, who will subsequently submit it to the publisher.