Peer Review Policies
CytoJournal uses online peer review to speed up the publication process. The time taken to reach a final decision depends on whether reviewers request revisions, and how quickly authors are able to respond.
Double blinded peer-review process– As elected by CytoJournal editorial board for bold, honest, and high quality double blinded peer-review process, CytoJournal has a closed peer review policy (authors are blinded for the peer reviewers and peer reviewers are blinded for author identification).
This review policy is not double-blind for the series of articles invited for CytoJournal Monograph/Atlas Series (CMAS) which may go through open review process for proactive interaction between the peer reviewers and the authors.
CytoJournal has an Editorial Board that understands the complexities of research in Cytopathology. It includes a broad spectrum of experts in the field, with backgrounds in the basic sciences and human pathology. They have expertise in clinical study design, are aware of the ethical and regulatory issues facing human experimentation, and have realistic expectations of the results obtainable within such limitations.
Each manuscript submitted to CytoJournal will follow one of two courses: 1) it may be assigned by the Executive Editor/ Editor-in-Chief and/or Managing Editor to a member of the Editorial Board (or other expert), who will appoint generally two reviewers, or 2) the manuscript may be assigned to reviewers directly by the Editor-in-Chief and/or Managing Editor. Once the reviewers and members of the Editorial Board assigned to the manuscript have provided their feedback, Executive Editor/Editor-in-Chief or academic/section editor will make the final decision. The Editor-in-Chief, and member of the Editorial Board assigned to oversee peer review of the manuscript, will be identified as acknowledgement for their work at the end of the published article as applicable.
Manuscripts submitted to CytoJournal are selected on the basis of the rationale of the study design and quality of research rather than the clinical outcome. Given that the review process is tailored towards tolerating the limitations intrinsic to clinical research, preliminary studies that shed new light on pathological processes and/or their treatment involving Cytopathology are welcome.
The ultimate responsibility for any decision lies with the Executive Editor, to whom any appeals against rejection should be addressed.
Authors who have appealed against a rejection but remain concerned about the editorial process can refer their case to The Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). For more information, visit www.publicationethics.org.uk.