Editorial Process

Standards and compliance

CRC Journals follows the standards and guidelines of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) and the World Association of Medical Editors (WAME). These standards support a rigorous peer review and publication process. Our policies are updated periodically to reflect new recommendations, and they apply to all journals published by CRC Journals.

All content is published with immediate open access. See the Open Access Policy for details.

Peer review process

Each manuscript follows a structured review process.

1. Initial check. The Managing Editor runs a plagiarism check and assesses whether the manuscript fits the journal's scope and formatting guidelines.
2. Assignment to an Academic Editor. A manuscript that passes the initial check goes to an Academic Editor, usually the Editor-in-Chief. The Editor-in-Chief may delegate to another Editorial Board Member, a Guest Editor or a subject expert.
3. Preliminary decision. The Academic Editor assesses quality and relevance. A manuscript that is unsuitable or of insufficient quality is rejected without further review. Otherwise it moves to full peer review.
4. Peer review. At least two independent experts review the manuscript. Reviewers consider:
   • Significance and novelty of the research
   • Academic integrity and scientific soundness
   • Clarity and presentation
   • Validity and originality
   Reviewers provide a detailed report and a recommendation within 14 days of accepting the invitation: acceptance, minor revision, major revision or rejection.
5. Final decision. The Academic Editor reviews the reports and decides. Additional reports may be requested if two reviewers give conflicting recommendations, or if the Academic Editor needs more input.

Submissions from editors

Submissions from Editorial Board Members and Guest Editors are handled separately to ensure impartiality. The submitting editor takes no part in the review or decision.

Reviewer selection

Reviewers are selected because they:

• Have no conflict of interest with the authors or their institutions
• Have expertise in the subject area and can evaluate the work objectively
• Have recent publications in the relevant field
• Can complete the review in the required timeframe

Reviewers suggested by authors

Authors may suggest reviewers with relevant expertise. The journal keeps full discretion over who is invited. For each suggestion, please provide the full name, e-mail address, research areas, institutional affiliation and ORCID ID if available. Suggested reviewers should:

• Have a recent publication record in the specific area of the manuscript
• Have no recent publications or submissions with any of the authors
• Not have shared an institutional affiliation with any author in the past few years
• Not be a current or recent collaborator of any author
• Not have a close personal relationship with any author
• Not have a financial interest in the manuscript or research

Notes for peer reviewers

• Conflicts of interest. Declare any relevant conflict before starting. If one arises during the review, you may withdraw.
• Confidentiality. Do not share details of the manuscript or contact the authors without permission from the editors.
• Manuscript copies. Destroy all copies after completing the review.
• Objective evaluation. Reviews must be impartial, regardless of the authors' nationality, gender, religious or political beliefs, or commercial interests.
• Misconduct. Report suspected plagiarism, duplicate publication or breaches of research ethics to the editorial office immediately.
• Self-citation. Do not ask authors to cite your own work unless there is a valid scholarly reason.
• Timeliness. Submit reports promptly. You may request an extension if needed.

Editorial roles

Managing Editor

Carries out the initial checks (scope, formatting and plagiarism screening with tools such as iThenticate), identifies suitable reviewers and manages communication between authors, reviewers and the Academic Editor.

Academic Editor

Decides whether a manuscript is suitable for peer review, oversees the review, assesses academic merit and makes the final decision on acceptance or rejection. This is usually the Editor-in-Chief, who may delegate for specific papers. The name of the Academic Editor is published with the paper on acceptance.

Preprint policy

CRC Journals supports open science and allows authors to post preprints. A preprint may be the original version, the accepted manuscript or the version of record, and can be shared on preprint servers, personal or institutional websites, or other open platforms.

• Identification. Name the preprint server and give the DOI or accession number during submission.
• After publication. Authors should update the preprint record with the journal reference, including the DOI and a link to the published article.