Peer Review
Clinical Medicine and Pharmacology uses double anonymous external peer review for substantive research submissions. Authors’ identities are concealed from external reviewers, and reviewer identities are not disclosed to authors. Editors and authorised editorial staff can see the information needed to manage the process. Because clinical specialties can be small and preprints are public, the journal cannot guarantee that a knowledgeable reviewer will never infer an author’s identity.
Initial clinical and integrity assessment
A handling editor first considers scope, article type, clarity, scientific plausibility and the completeness of clinical declarations. Trial registration, ethics approval, consent where required, competing interests and data availability are checked at a level appropriate to the study. A paper may be returned for missing documents or declined because the question, design or ethical basis does not justify external review. Administrative completeness does not imply scientific acceptance.
Independent expert assessment
Research articles, evidence reviews, case reports, short communications and technical notes advancing substantive findings are assessed by at least two independent external experts. These reviewers are independent of the authors and are not members of the journal’s editorial team or editorial board. Selection considers clinical specialty, pharmacological or methodological expertise and relevant conflicts. Additional statistical, diagnostic, safety or research ethics advice may be sought. Author suggestions are optional and are independently verified; suggestions do not create a right to a particular reviewer.
What reviewers assess
Reviewers examine the relationship between the research question, design and conclusions; the reliability of measurements; selection and follow up of patients; outcome definitions; missing data; benefits and adverse effects; and relevance to practice. They consider the protocol and registration where applicable and the supporting tables, code, images and supplementary files needed to evaluate claims. A case report is assessed for its clinical lesson and evidential limits, not treated as proof of treatment efficacy.
Confidentiality and identity preparation
Authors provide a separate title page and remove identifying material from the review manuscript where this can be done without concealing essential methodology. Sensitive approval documents can be supplied separately. Reviewers must not disclose or appropriate unpublished findings, delegate assessment without permission, or upload confidential material to an unapproved AI service. Suspected misconduct is reported privately to the editor. A reviewer who identifies a conflict or cannot provide a competent assessment should decline or withdraw.
Decisions and revision
Reviewers advise; the responsible editor decides. The decision letter explains the main grounds and may request minor or major revision, decline the paper or accept it. Authors respond to comments point by point and identify changes. Revised work may return to the same reviewers or be assessed by additional experts. Completing requested revisions does not guarantee acceptance, and disagreement between reviewers is resolved by editorial judgment rather than a simple vote.
Other content and exceptions
Editorial announcements and administrative notices that report no substantive research receive editorial checking and are labelled accordingly. Commentaries and scholarly correspondence receive editorial assessment; those presenting substantive research findings undergo the independent external review required above. Nonresearch material using an editorial assessment route identifies the assessment received. An exception label cannot exempt research from the two reviewer requirement. Reviews are confidential and anonymous; CMP does not routinely publish signed reviewer reports.
Timing conflicts and challenge
No review interval or acceptance outcome is guaranteed. Authors are informed of substantial delays and may request withdrawal. Manuscripts from editors, guest editors or their conflicted collaborators are assigned to an independent editor with the same evidential standards. Concerns about reviewer conduct and reasoned appeals follow Complaints and Editorial Appeals. Questions or supporting documents should be sent through the CMP editorial office at cmpeditorialoffice@jandoopress.com, identifying the manuscript number or article DOI where available.
Application of the revised process
From 15 September 2026, substantive research must receive at least two independent external reports under double-anonymous review before acceptance. The office checks the anonymous review file and editor permissions. Research by editors or board members follows the independent handling provisions in Ownership Governance and Editorial Independence. Historical records retain their real review and publication dates; adoption of this policy is not a retrospective claim that every earlier file followed it.
Last updated: 17 September 2026