Peer Review Policy, Process, and Guidance


All manuscripts submitted to JCHIMP will undergo a double-blind peer review process, where in the author and the peer review remain anonymous to each other. This process typically involves review by at least two-independent, expert peer reviewers.

If you are interested in becoming a peer reviewer for JCHIMP click here to register in Editorial Manager.

Peer Review Policy

All submissions to JCHIMP are first reviewed for completeness (see Author Instructions for more information) and then sent to the editor to be decided if it is suitable for the journal and peer review. The editor will consider the peer review comments when making a decision on the manuscript, but the editor does not have to follow the suggestion given by the peer reviewers. If a single peer reviewer raises concern that the manuscript is unsuitable or unsound, the editor in chief may decide based on the one review instead of two. Once a decision has been made the author will receive all comments from the peer reviewer(s) and the editor concerning the decision and the manuscript.

Final decision on every manuscript is at the discretion of the Editor-in-Chief with consideration of reviewer comments, authors Reponses and revisions, and the papers clarity, quality, novelty, and relevance to the overall aim of the Journal. Submissions by members of the editorial board are processed by the managing editor and production team to ensure blinded peer reviewers are used and unbiased reviews obtained. Copyright infringement and plagiarism are not tolerated.

During the review process, editors do not disclose any information about the submission to anyone other than the corresponding author, reviewers, potential reviewers, and other editorial advisers. Any manuscripts received for review be treated as confidential documents. Editors strive to ensure that peer review is fair, unbiased, and timely. The journal encourages reviewers to comment on ethical questions and possible misconduct raised by submissions (e.g., unethical research design, insufficient detail on patient consent or protection of research subjects [including animals], inappropriate data manipulation), and to be alert to redundant publication and plagiarism.

Reviews are conducted objectively and include supporting arguments for observations so that authors can use them for improving the paper. Reviewers should identify relevant published work that has not been cited by the authors. The journal acknowledges the contribution of volunteer reviewers to the journal in an annual supplement, and ceases to use reviewers who consistently produce discourteous, poor quality or late reviews.