Peer Review Policy

The Clinical Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology (CJOG) employs a rigorous, unbiased, and transparent peer review process to uphold the highest standards of scientific integrity. This policy explains our double-blind review methodology, reviewer selection criteria, editorial decision workflows, responsibilities of all parties, and COPE-aligned procedures for handling concerns or misconduct during the evaluation process.

Purpose of Peer Review

Peer review serves to validate research quality, relevance, ethics, and originality. It ensures that:

• Only scientifically sound and ethically compliant research is published.
• Manuscripts meet disciplinary and methodological standards.
• Authors receive constructive, informed feedback to improve their work.
• The scientific community and public can trust published content.

Peer Review Model: Double-Blind Review

CJOG follows a strict double-blind peer review system, meaning:

• Reviewers do not know the identity of authors.
• Authors do not know the identity of reviewers.

This approach reduces bias based on gender, affiliation, geography, seniority, or reputation.

Peer Review Workflow

The peer review process follows a clearly defined sequence:

1. Initial Editorial Screening
   • Scope relevance check.
   • Plagiarism screening.
   • Ethical compliance check.
   • Quality of writing and formatting.
2. Assignment to Associate Editor
   • Based on subject area expertise.
   • Assessment of novelty and scientific merit.
3. Reviewer Selection
   • Minimum of two independent experts.
   • Reviewers selected based on expertise, experience, and lack of conflict of interest.
4. Review Invitation and Acceptance
   • Reviewers confirm availability.
   • Expected completion: 10–14 days (extensions granted when required).
5. Reviewer Evaluation
   • Structured review form.
   • Confidential comments to editors.
   • Constructive comments to authors.
   • Ethical concerns flagged separately.
6. Editorial Decision
   • Editors synthesize feedback.
   • A decision is issued (see below).
7. Revision Process (if required)
   • Authors provide point-by-point responses.
   • Revisions undergo editorial or second-round review.
8. Final Acceptance
   • Compliance with formatting and ethical standards confirmed.
   • Article moved to production.

Editorial Decision Types

CJOG issues one of the following decisions:

• Accept – Manuscript meets publication standards.
• Minor Revision – Small improvements needed.
• Major Revision – Substantial improvements required before reconsideration.
• Reject and Resubmit – Fundamental changes required; treated as new submission.
• Reject – Manuscript does not meet scientific or ethical standards.

Reviewer Selection and Eligibility

Reviewers are selected based on:

• PhD, MD, or equivalent expertise.
• Relevant field-specific knowledge.
• Prior publication record.
• No conflict of interest.
• Proven history of ethical reviewing.

Ineligible reviewers include:

• Close collaborators of authors.
• Researchers from same institution.
• Reviewers with competing interests (financial, personal, academic).

Reviewer Responsibilities

Reviewers are expected to uphold the highest standards of integrity, confidentiality, and professional conduct.

Reviewers Must:

• Complete reviews within agreed timelines.
• Provide constructive, evidence-based evaluations.
• Maintain confidentiality of all materials.
• Refrain from sharing or using manuscript content for personal benefit.
• Disclose any potential conflicts of interest.
• Report suspected plagiarism, data fabrication, image manipulation, or ethical concerns.

Editorial Responsibilities

• Select unbiased and qualified reviewers.
• Ensure confidentiality of reviewer identity.
• Make decisions based on scientific merit, not external influence.
• Provide clear communication to authors.
• Handle conflicts and appeals fairly and promptly.

Confidentiality in Peer Review

All submitted manuscripts are treated as confidential documents. Reviewers and editors:

• Must not share manuscripts with colleagues without permission.
• Cannot use unpublished data for research or teaching.
• Must delete all files after review completion.

Handling Conflicts of Interest

Conflicts must be disclosed by:

• Authors
• Reviewers
• Editors

If conflicts are identified, the editor reassigns the manuscript to a conflict-free reviewer.

Misconduct Detection During Peer Review

If reviewers or editors detect ethical issues, CJOG follows COPE-compliant workflows.

Common issues flagged:

• Plagiarism
• Data falsification
• Duplicate submission
• Image manipulation
• Improper consent or IRB approval

Investigation Process:

1. Initial screening by editor.
2. Request for author clarification.
3. Consultation with reviewers or experts.
4. Decision issued based on evidence.

Revision Expectations for Authors

• Provide detailed point-by-point responses.
• Highlight changes in revised manuscripts.
• Address all reviewer concerns clearly.
• Maintain respectful communication.

Turnaround Time

CJOG aims for an efficient yet thorough review process:

• Initial screening: 3–7 days
• Reviewer assignment: 3–5 days
• Review period: 10–21 days
• Revisions: 7–21 days depending on complexity

Appeals Process

Authors may appeal editorial decisions when they believe:

• A misunderstanding occurred.
• Reviewer comments contain factual errors.
• New evidence justifies reconsideration.

Appeals must include:

• A detailed rebuttal.
• Evidence supporting the appeal.
• Clear responses to reviewer comments.

Appeals are handled by an independent senior editor.

Peer Review Integrity & Ethical Safeguards

CJOG is committed to preventing review manipulation, fabricated identities, or unethical reviewer behavior. Actions include:

• Verified reviewer identity checks.
• Monitoring for suspicious reviewing patterns.
• Permanent bans on unethical reviewers.

Use of AI in Peer Review

Reviewers may not use AI tools to evaluate manuscripts unless:

• Their use is disclosed to the editor.
• No confidential content is uploaded to external systems.
• Reviewers maintain responsibility for evaluation accuracy.

Publication Bias Prevention

Editors ensure:

• No preference for positive or “significant” results.
• Equal treatment for replication studies.
• Acceptance of null or negative findings based on merit.

Examples of Ethical vs Unethical Review Cases

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)

How many reviewers evaluate each manuscript?

Usually two, but sometimes three for complex submissions.

Are authors informed of reviewer identities?

No. Reviewer identities remain permanently confidential.

Can authors suggest reviewers?

Yes, but editors make the final selection.

Can authors oppose specific reviewers?

Yes, with valid justification (conflicts or prior disputes).

What if a reviewer is unresponsive?

The editor assigns an alternate reviewer to avoid delays.

Commitment to Transparency

CJOG strives for maximum transparency while protecting the integrity of the double-blind process. All decisions are based solely on academic merit, ethical compliance, and reviewer evaluations.

Conclusion

The peer review process is foundational to the journal’s mission of advancing women’s health research. CJOG ensures that manuscripts undergo fair, ethical, and scientifically rigorous evaluation in alignment with international best practices.