International Journal of Current Microbiology and Applied Sciences (IJCMAS)
IJCMAS is now DOI (CrossRef) registered Research Journal. The DOIs are assigned to all published IJCMAS Articles.
Index Copernicus ICI Journals Master List 2022 - IJCMAS--ICV 2022: 95.28 For more details click here
National Academy of Agricultural Sciences (NAAS) : NAAS Score: *5.38 (2020) [Effective from January 1, 2020] For more details click here

IJCMAS operates peer review process based on the guidelines of Committee on Publication Ethics

Call Us: +91 9566 45 2355

See Guidelines to Authors

Editorial Policy

Peer Review Process

International Journal of Current Microbiology and Applied Sciences (IJCMAS)

Introduction: The International Journal of Current Microbiology and Applied Sciences (IJCMAS) is dedicated to maintaining the highest standards of scientific integrity. In alignment with the guidelines provided by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), all submitted manuscripts undergo a rigorous peer review process using a single-blind system.

1. Manuscript Submission:

   1.1. Authors submit their manuscript in adherence to IJCMAS's submission guidelines. 1.2. Manuscripts not in compliance with the journal’s guidelines may be returned to the authors for corrections or may face outright rejection.

2. Initial Editorial Screening:

   2.1. The editorial team initially screens the manuscript for its relevance, quality, and adherence to the journal's scope and ethical guidelines. 2.2. Manuscripts not meeting the preliminary standards may be rejected without external review.

3. Single-Blind Peer Review Assignment:

   3.1. Manuscripts clearing the initial screening are sent to a minimum of two independent expert reviewers in the relevant field. 3.2. In the single-blind system, the identity of the reviewers is kept hidden from the authors, but the reviewers are aware of the authors' identities.

4. Reviewer’s Assessment:

   4.1. Reviewers evaluate the manuscript for scientific quality, originality, methodology, significance, and relevance to the journal's readership. 4.2. They are expected to adhere to COPE guidelines ensuring fairness, confidentiality, and timeliness in their review.

5. Review Feedback and Recommendations:

   5.1. Reviewers provide detailed feedback, suggesting improvements, if any, and give a recommendation: accept, accept with minor/major revisions, or reject. 5.2. Recommendations should be supported with clear and objective comments.

6. Editorial Decision Making:

  6.1. The editorial board consolidates the reviewers' feedback. 6.2. The authors are then provided with the reviewers’ comments (without revealing reviewer identities) and the editorial decision. If revisions are recommended, authors are required to address all comments and resubmit the improved manuscript.

7. Revised Manuscript Submission and Assessment:

  7.1. If revisions were suggested, the revised manuscript might be sent back to the original reviewers or new reviewers, as deemed appropriate by the editorial team. 7.2. The reviewers assess the changes made and may recommend further revisions or approve the manuscript for publication.

8. Final Decision:

  8.1. The editorial board, considering all reviews and revisions, makes the final decision on the manuscript's acceptance or rejection.

  8.2. The decision is then communicated to the authors.

9. Feedback to Reviewers:

  9.1. After completion of the review process, reviewers are informed of the final decision on the manuscript to maintain transparency and uphold the review quality.

10. Appeals and Grievances:

   10.1. Authors disagreeing with the editorial decision can appeal by providing a comprehensive justification for reconsideration.

   10.2. All appeals are treated seriously, with due investigation, and in alignment with COPE guidelines.

Conclusion: The peer review process of IJCMAS aims to ensure that only the highest quality, original, and significant research is published. Both authors and reviewers are integral to this process, and their commitment to scientific integrity and excellence is deeply appreciated.

Note: This process may be periodically updated based on feedback and the evolving standards of scientific publishing, always in line with COPE recommendations.