Peer Review Process

Introduction

The International Journal of Clinical Anesthesia and Research (IJCAR) follows a rigorous and transparent double-blind peer review process to ensure scientific accuracy, originality, and ethical integrity. Every manuscript undergoes evaluation by independent experts who assess the validity, significance, and relevance of the research.

“Peer review at IJCAR is impartial, confidential, and based purely on scientific merit.”

Overview of the Peer Review Workflow

Stage Description Time Frame
1. Submission Authors submit their manuscript via the online system or email ([email protected]). Day 0
2. Initial Screening Editorial staff reviews for scope, formatting, and plagiarism using iThenticate. Within 3–5 days
3. Editor Assignment The Editor-in-Chief assigns an Associate Editor based on expertise. Within 7 days
4. Reviewer Selection Two or more independent reviewers are invited based on subject relevance and neutrality. Within 10 days
5. Review Phase Reviewers assess methodology, data integrity, ethics, and originality. 2–4 weeks
6. Decision Editor compiles feedback and makes a decision (accept/revise/reject). Within 5 days post-review
7. Revision Authors revise according to reviewer comments and resubmit. 1–2 weeks
8. Final Decision Editor-in-Chief confirms acceptance after final evaluation. Within 7 days
9. Production Manuscript moves to copyediting, proofing, and DOI assignment. 3–5 days

Double-Blind Review Policy

IJCAR employs a double-blind review system — both authors and reviewers remain anonymous to each other throughout the review process. This minimizes bias and ensures fair evaluation of submissions solely based on content.

Reviewer Selection Criteria

  • Subject expertise and publication record in the field.
  • Absence of conflict of interest with the authors or study topic.
  • Timely and ethical review history.
  • Diversity in institutional and geographic representation.

Review Evaluation Parameters

  • Originality and contribution to knowledge.
  • Scientific rigor and clarity of methodology.
  • Relevance to clinical anesthesia or perioperative research.
  • Statistical accuracy and data interpretation.
  • Ethical compliance and appropriate citations.

Possible Editorial Decisions

  1. Accept without revision – Paper is ready for publication.
  2. Minor revisions required – Small edits needed, no additional data requested.
  3. Major revisions required – Substantial changes or clarifications required before reconsideration.
  4. Reject – Does not meet journal standards or out of scope.

Ethical Oversight

Editors and reviewers must follow COPE’s Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers. Reviewers are instructed to report suspected plagiarism, fabrication, falsification, or ethical violations to the Editor immediately.

Confidentiality

  • Reviewers must treat all manuscripts as confidential documents.
  • Manuscript content cannot be used for personal advantage or shared with others.
  • Editors ensure reviewer identities remain confidential at all times.

Appeal and Re-Review Process

Authors who disagree with a decision may submit a formal appeal to [email protected]. Appeals are reviewed by an independent editorial board member who was not involved in the initial decision.

Reminder: The peer review system at IJCAR is designed to promote scholarly excellence while upholding fairness, confidentiality, and transparency.

Reviewer Acknowledgment and Credit

IJCAR acknowledges reviewers annually through certificates, ORCID integration, and optional recognition on Publons. Reviewers demonstrating excellence are considered for inclusion in the Reviewer Board or Editorial Panel.

Contact Information

For peer review or editorial process assistance:
Email: [email protected]
Alternate: [email protected]
Website: www.anesthesiaresjournal.com

Source: Based on COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers, ICMJE Recommendations, and anesthesiaresjournal.com peer review workflow.