Advertisers
Access Statistics Resources
Authors are the souls of any journal, and deserve much respect. To publish a journal manuscripts are needed from authors. Authors have a great responsibility for producing facts of their work in terms of number and results truthfully and an individual honesty is expected from authors in this regards. Both ways its true "No authors-No manuscripts-No journals" and "No journals�No manuscripts�No authors". Reviewing a manuscript is also a very responsible and important task of any peer-reviewed journal and to be taken seriously. It needs knowledge on the subject, sincerity, honesty and determination. Although the process of reviewing a manuscript is a time consuming task butit is expected to give one's best remarks within the time frame of the journal.
Salient features of the JCDR: It is a biomedical, multidisciplinary (including all medical and dental specialities), e-journal, with wide scope and extensive author support. At the same time, a free text of manuscript is available in HTML and PDF format. There is fast growing authorship and readership with JCDR as this can be judged by the number of articles published in it i e; in Feb 2007 of its first issue, it contained 5 articles only, and now in its recent volume published in April 2011, it contained 67 manuscripts. This e-journal is fulfilling the commitments and objectives sincerely, (as stated by Editor-in-chief in his preface to first edition) i e; to encourage physicians through the internet, especially from the developing countries who witness a spectrum of disease and acquire a wealth of knowledge to publish their experiences to benefit the medical community in patients care. I also feel that many of us have work of substance, newer ideas, adequate clinical materials but poor in medical writing and hesitation to submit the work and need help. JCDR provides authors help in this regards.
Timely publication of journal: Publication of manuscripts and bringing out the issue in time is one of the positive aspects of JCDR and is possible with strong support team in terms of peer reviewers, proof reading, language check, computer operators, etc. This is one of the great reasons for authors to submit their work with JCDR. Another best part of JCDR is "Online first Publications" facilities available for the authors. This facility not only provides the prompt publications of the manuscripts but at the same time also early availability of the manuscripts for the readers.
Indexation and online availability: Indexation transforms the journal in some sense from its local ownership to the worldwide professional community and to the public.JCDR is indexed with Embase & EMbiology, Google Scholar, Index Copernicus, Chemical Abstracts Service, Journal seek Database, Indian Science Abstracts, to name few of them. Manuscriptspublished in JCDR are available on major search engines ie; google, yahoo, msn.
In the era of fast growing newer technologies, and in computer and internet friendly environment the manuscripts preparation, submission, review, revision, etc and all can be done and checked with a click from all corer of the world, at any time. Of course there is always a scope for improvement in every field and none is perfect. To progress, one needs to identify the areas of one's weakness and to strengthen them.
It is well said that "happy beginning is half done" and it fits perfectly with JCDR. It has grown considerably and I feel it has already grown up from its infancy to adolescence, achieving the status of standard online e-journal form Indian continent since its inception in Feb 2007. This had been made possible due to the efforts and the hard work put in it. The way the JCDR is improving with every new volume, with good quality original manuscripts, makes it a quality journal for readers. I must thank and congratulate Dr Hemant Jain, Editor-in-Chief JCDR and his team for their sincere efforts, dedication, and determination for making JCDR a fast growing journal.
Every one of us: authors, reviewers, editors, and publisher are responsible for enhancing the stature of the journal. I wish for a great success for JCDR."
Thanking you
With sincere regards
Dr. Rajendra Kumar Ghritlaharey, M.S., M. Ch., FAIS
Associate Professor,
Department of Paediatric Surgery, Gandhi Medical College & Associated
Kamla Nehru & Hamidia Hospitals Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh 462 001 (India)
E-mail: [email protected]
On May 11,2011
Dr. Shankar P.R.
"On looking back through my Gmail archives after being requested by the journal to write a short editorial about my experiences of publishing with the Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research (JCDR), I came across an e-mail from Dr. Hemant Jain, Editor, in March 2007, which introduced the new electronic journal. The main features of the journal which were outlined in the e-mail were extensive author support, cash rewards, the peer review process, and other salient features of the journal.
Over a span of over four years, we (I and my colleagues) have published around 25 articles in the journal. In this editorial, I plan to briefly discuss my experiences of publishing with JCDR and the strengths of the journal and to finally address the areas for improvement.
My experiences of publishing with JCDR: Overall, my experiences of publishing withJCDR have been positive. The best point about the journal is that it responds to queries from the author. This may seem to be simple and not too much to ask for, but unfortunately, many journals in the subcontinent and from many developing countries do not respond or they respond with a long delay to the queries from the authors 1. The reasons could be many, including lack of optimal secretarial and other support. Another problem with many journals is the slowness of the review process. Editorial processing and peer review can take anywhere between a year to two years with some journals. Also, some journals do not keep the contributors informed about the progress of the review process. Due to the long review process, the articles can lose their relevance and topicality. A major benefit with JCDR is the timeliness and promptness of its response. In Dr Jain's e-mail which was sent to me in 2007, before the introduction of the Pre-publishing system, he had stated that he had received my submission and that he would get back to me within seven days and he did!
Most of the manuscripts are published within 3 to 4 months of their submission if they are found to be suitable after the review process. JCDR is published bimonthly and the accepted articles were usually published in the next issue. Recently, due to the increased volume of the submissions, the review process has become slower and it ?? Section can take from 4 to 6 months for the articles to be reviewed. The journal has an extensive author support system and it has recently introduced a paid expedited review process. The journal also mentions the average time for processing the manuscript under different submission systems - regular submission and expedited review.
Strengths of the journal: The journal has an online first facility in which the accepted manuscripts may be published on the website before being included in a regular issue of the journal. This cuts down the time between their acceptance and the publication. The journal is indexed in many databases, though not in PubMed. The editorial board should now take steps to index the journal in PubMed. The journal has a system of notifying readers through e-mail when a new issue is released. Also, the articles are available in both the HTML and the PDF formats. I especially like the new and colorful page format of the journal. Also, the access statistics of the articles are available. The prepublication and the manuscript tracking system are also helpful for the authors.
Areas for improvement: In certain cases, I felt that the peer review process of the manuscripts was not up to international standards and that it should be strengthened. Also, the number of manuscripts in an issue is high and it may be difficult for readers to go through all of them. The journal can consider tightening of the peer review process and increasing the quality standards for the acceptance of the manuscripts. I faced occasional problems with the online manuscript submission (Pre-publishing) system, which have to be addressed.
Overall, the publishing process with JCDR has been smooth, quick and relatively hassle free and I can recommend other authors to consider the journal as an outlet for their work."
Dr. P. Ravi Shankar
KIST Medical College, P.O. Box 14142, Kathmandu, Nepal.
E-mail: [email protected]
On April 2011 Anuradha
Dear team JCDR, I would like to thank you for the very professional and polite service provided by everyone at JCDR. While i have been in the field of writing and editing for sometime, this has been my first attempt in publishing a scientific paper.Thank you for hand-holding me through the process.
Dr. Anuradha
E-mail: [email protected]
On Jan 2020
Peer review is a very important and integral component of the editorial process. It plays a crucial role in increasing the quality of a paper. The three major objectives of peer review include the following:
- It provides expert opinion to authors on the quality of their work.
- It assesses the scientific validity of the methodology and the results.
- It presents crucial information to editors to take the find decision on publishing the paper.
The peer review process relies heavily on the voluntary contribution of the peer reviewers, who spare their valuable time in performing the peer review. In order to do justice to a paper submitted for peer review, it is important that the peer reviewers themselves are equipped with the knowledge, expertise, and skills to perform the peer review. Moreover, they should have a thorough understanding of the entire peer review process. The present guideline addresses these aspects.
The reviewer’s comments should be divided into (i) Comments to the authors and (ii) Comments to the editor.
Comments to the Authors
The comments to the authors should be based on a thorough examination of the entire paper, analyzing each section in minute detail. These aspects are addressed below, following the format and structure of a typical research paper.
Title and Abstract: It must be ensured that the title is accurate and clearly conveys the focus of the study in a nutshell. It should be checked that the abstract is structured, informative and concisely summarizes the study. Numerical data presented in the abstract should match the data presented in the main body of the text. Moreover, the conclusions should correctly interpret the results and be focused and incisive.
Introduction: This section should be checked to ascertain whether it clearly and succinctly states the research question, the aims and objectives and the rationale for the study.
Materials and Methods:The reviewer should closely examine this section to understand the study process and how it was conducted. It should be ensured that the study design is flawless and that it was strictly adhered to by the authors while conducting the experiments.
The reviewer should check whether the study was approved by the institutional ethics committee and that informed consent was taken in case of clinical studies involving patients. Also, the reviewer should closely inspect whether appropriate statistical analysis was carried out. If in doubt, the reviewer should inform the editor to consult the journal’s statistician.
Results: The reviewer should assess whether the results have been clearly presented and there is no repetition of data in the text as well as in the tables and figures. The tables and figures should be easy to understand and correctly labelled. All the study participants should be accounted for. Moreover, it must be ensured that all numerical values are consistent throughout the paper i.e. in the abstract, results, tables and figures.
Discussion: In this section, the reviewer should check whether the authors have compared their study with similar published studies in the literature and whether their study agrees or disagrees with previous findings. It should also be checked whether the authors have stated the strengths and limitations of the study and their possible impact on interpretation of the results. The reviewer should carefully assess whether the conclusions are justified and warranted by the data presented in the paper.
References: The reviewer should ensure that the references are appropriate, up-to-date, and comply with the style of referencing followed by the journal.
Comments to the Editor
The comments to the editor should be highly confidential. In these comments, the editor should be advised about the fate of the paper, such as (i) acceptance in the present form without any revision, (ii) acceptance after a minor revision, (iii) acceptance after a major revision, and (iv) rejection at the present stage. The editor should be informed about the novelty and originality of the research and its contribution to the respective field of knowledge. While providing the comments to the editor, the reviewer should disclose if there is any conflict of interest in reviewing the paper. This information will allow the editor to weigh the comments submitted by the reviewer while making the final decision.
Points to Remember
- Specific advice on improvement of the quality and accuracy of the paper should be provided to the authors.
- The authors should be clearly informed if the content of the paper is incomprehensible.
- Comments regarding acceptance or rejection should not be conveyed to the authors as the final decision lies with the editor.
- Harsh comments to authors should be avoided even if the recommendation is to reject the paper.
- The length of the review for most papers can be around two to three pages, depending on the contents and length of the paper – a lengthy paper may require a more detailed review, but should be kept below ten pages.
- The authors should be advised about typography, grammar, syntax, and style of writing in order to improve the quality of the paper so that it is compliant with the requirements of the journal.
- The contents of the paper as well as the review’s comments should be strictly kept confidential.
- The reviewer’s comments should be submitted within the timeframe fixed by the journal, which is generally seven days.
Final Comments
It should be kept in mind that the ultimate objective of medical peer review is to promote health and wellbeing. Moreover, the entire peer review process also provides multiple benefits, not only for the authors, readers, and editors, but also for the peer reviewers themselves. The authors and readers benefit from a well-polished paper that is comprehensible and easy to read. The editors benefit from the fact that the quality and standard of the journal is enhanced through the efforts of the peer reviewers. Finally, for the peer reviewers, the whole exercise helps to sharpen their editing and writing skills, which appreciably contributes towards improvement of their own research.