Peer Review

CJEO subjects all submitted research articles to the highest standards of international peer review:

  • At least three suitable qualified experts review each research article.
  • The journal’s Editor-in-Chief and executive editor make all publication decisions based on the reviews provided.
  • The Editorial Board Members assist the Editor-in-Chief in decision making on specific submissions.
  • The Editorial Board Members lend insight, advice, and guidance to the Editor-in-Chief.
  • Administrative support for the review process is provided by the Managing Editors and Editorial Assistants. They uphold the integrity of peer review while delivering rapid turnaround and maximum efficiency to all stakeholders including authors, reviewers, and editors alike.
  • We do not release referees’ identities to authors or to other reviewers unless a referee voluntarily signs their comments to the authors. Our preference is for referees to remain anonymous throughout the review process and beyond.
  • CJEO subscribes fully to the COPE code of conduct and best practice for journal editors, ensuring that our editors are accountable for everything published in our journal. Our readers will always be informed about how the research is funded and our relationships with authors, reviewers and editorial board members will be influenced by COPE recommendations.

Reviewers primarily evaluate the originality, validity and importance of the manuscripts, and provide detailed and evidence-based (with references) comments to help editors to make publication decisions (accept, revise or reject) and authors to make improvements.

The following points are considered during the review process:

  1. Is the manuscript suitable for CJEO? Is it original and important?

The topic should be within the scope of the journal and should be of interest to the readers. Reviewers also need to judge the originality and importance of the manuscript.

  1. Are the results and conclusions well supported?

Reviewers should highlight if the data are incomplete, insufficient, or if there are errors, because the data may fail to lead to the results and thus the conclusions.

  1. Are there any problems regarding statistics?

The statistics reviewer needs to make sure there are no flaws or errors regarding statistical methods and analyses.

  1. Confidentiality

Reviewers should respect and observe the confidentiality of the manuscript.

  1. Does the manuscript meet ethical requirements?

Research related to human trials should provide information on approval documentation by ethics committees and official documentation numbers. Research related to animal experimentation should provide the description of how the study adhered to experimental animal welfare. Studies that do not meet the journals ethical requirements will be rejected.