Peer Review Process

JSMCAH employs a double-blind process at the review stage (the reviewer does not know the authors' identity, and the authors do not know the identity of the reviewers) but reveals the names of the reviewers upon publication. It is the authors’ responsibility to ensure that submissions are blinded. Peer reviewers are asked to adhere to the principles of COPE's Ethical Guidelines for Peer-reviewers. Reviewers are selected based on their expertise, and each manuscript is reviewed by a minimum of two independent reviewers. 

Data papers are reviewed single-blind. Assessing a data paper requires opening the deposited dataset, and a repository record identifies whoever deposited it, so the authors cannot be masked from the reviewer without preventing the review. Reviewers of data papers remain anonymous to the authors until publication, and the conflict of interest expectations are the same as for every other article type.

Supplemental issues vary by content type. Consensus documents and guidelines are reviewed by a minimum of two external reviewers with relevant expertise, through an editorial review process rather than the double-blind process used for regular submissions. Conference abstracts are editorially reviewed, are not peer reviewed, and are labelled as such.