All steps in the review process, from first assessment to final editorial decision, are performed in the online manuscript tracking system. All submitted manuscripts are first assessed by the in-house scientific editor(s) for suitability for further processing. Manuscripts that are in principle inappropriate for JMCB due to lack of sufficient novelty or general interest or simply beyond the scope of JMCB will be returned to the authors as rapidly as possible. Manuscripts that in principle appropriate for further consideration will be forwarded to the Associate Editors (Editor-in-Chief) for further assessment. Assigned handling editor decides the initiation of peer review process or not based on the scientific quality of the presented work. If accorded high quality and priority, the manuscript will be sent out for in-depth peer review.
Peer review process is completed by the handling editor together with the in-house scientific editors. We strive for a constructive and fair peer review process. JMCB aims to collect more than two reviewers' recommendations within one month. Based on the reviewers’ comments, suggestions, and overall assessments, the handling editor makes a formal editorial decision, which will be immediately sent to the authors. Occasionally, we may grant the authors an opportunity to give a tentative response to review comments before a formal editorial decision is made (e.g. in the case of conflicting comments by several reviewers).
The rejected manuscripts will be closed in the system. For Minor or Major Revision, revised manuscripts should generally be submitted within two months after the initial editorial decision is received. Revised manuscripts will undergo only one more round of peer review process before final editorial decision is reached. In case of acceptance, the production process will be initiated.
For status inquiries about submitted papers, E-mail: email@example.com
To request an extension for revision, E-mail: firstname.lastname@example.org