Peer Review Process

The International Journal of Clinical and Experimental Ophthalmology (IJCEO) follows a rigorous double-blind peer review process to ensure that all published research meets high standards of quality, originality, and ethical integrity. This process protects the anonymity of both authors and reviewers, fostering impartiality and fairness in scholarly evaluation.

Stages of Peer Review

  1. Initial Editorial Screening: Submitted manuscripts are screened for compliance with the journal’s aims, scope, formatting, and ethical policies.
  2. Reviewer Assignment: The handling editor assigns at least two expert reviewers with relevant expertise and no conflicts of interest.
  3. Reviewer Evaluation: Reviewers assess manuscripts for originality, methodology, clarity, data integrity, and ethical compliance.
  4. Editorial Decision: Editors consider reviewer feedback and decide whether to accept, reject, or request revisions.
  5. Revision Process: Authors submit revised manuscripts addressing reviewer comments. Further rounds of review may occur if needed.
  6. Final Decision and Acceptance: Once reviewers and editors are satisfied, the manuscript is accepted and moved into production.

Evaluation Criteria

  • Relevance to ophthalmology and the scope of IJCEO.
  • Originality and novelty of the research.
  • Methodological soundness and statistical rigor.
  • Clarity of presentation and logical structure.
  • Ethical compliance for human and animal studies.
  • Contribution to advancing knowledge in the field.

Timelines

IJCEO strives to provide timely decisions. The average review cycle is 3–5 weeks. Authors are updated at each stage, and expedited review may be considered for time-sensitive submissions.

Confidentiality

Manuscripts under review are strictly confidential. Reviewers and editors must not disclose content or use unpublished information for personal advantage.

Reviewer Selection

  • Reviewers are chosen based on subject expertise, publication history, and impartiality.
  • Diversity of reviewer backgrounds is encouraged to avoid bias.
  • Conflicted reviewers are excluded from consideration.

Decision Categories

  1. Accept: Manuscript meets all scholarly and ethical standards.
  2. Minor Revisions: Manuscript requires small improvements before acceptance.
  3. Major Revisions: Substantial improvements are required; revised manuscript undergoes further review.
  4. Reject: Manuscript does not meet the journal’s standards.

Appeals

Authors may appeal editorial decisions by submitting a reasoned rebuttal. Appeals are reviewed by independent editors, ensuring transparency and fairness.

Use of AI in Peer Review

IJCEO prohibits the use of generative AI tools to substitute reviewer judgment. Reviewers may use AI for language refinement but remain responsible for accuracy, integrity, and confidentiality.

Frequently Asked Questions

How many reviewers assess each manuscript?

Typically, two to three reviewers are assigned. Additional experts may be consulted if necessary.

Are reviewer comments shared with authors?

Yes. Reviewer comments are anonymized and shared with authors to guide revisions.

How are conflicts of interest managed?

Reviewers must disclose conflicts, and editors assign alternative reviewers where necessary.

Sources: Adapted from IJCEO old website, expanded with COPE and ICMJE peer review standards.