1. Editorial Review

The preliminary review is conducted by the responsible editor of the discipline and the director of the editorial department, mainly including: Whether the paper conforms to the aims and scope of Clinical Archives of Integrative Medicine(CAIM）; Whether the manuscript meets the basic elements and the publication criteria of academic paper; Whether the manuscript has plagiarism. The manuscript found to have been published or with academic misconduct behaviors will be rejected directly.

 

2. Peer review

2.1 CAIM follows a single-blind review process. (That is, the editorial staff sends the papers for formal reviews online, and the author information is available to the reviewers while reviewer’s information is not available to the authors.)

2.2 CAIM operates a peer review process, and regards the process as an academic achievement. The comments of the chief editors and reviewers are published together with the paper, revealing valuable views and decisions, and recognizing the achievements of reviewers.

 

2.3 Peer review process

The whole process of peer-review is completed through the submission review system online.

2.3.1 After the preliminary review on the form and content of the manuscript, the editorial staff selects at least one reviewer online, and the reviewers recommended by corresponding authors are not accepted.

2.3.2 The editorial staff invite reviewers through the submission system or by sending emails.

2.3.3 After receiving an affirmative reply, the manuscript and related materials, such as articles and related chart attachments, review lists, review methods instruction and requirements, are sent online to the reviewer for reference.

2.3.4 The editorial office follows the review process through the online review system or e-mail. The peer review should be finished in 14-28 days. If there is any unexpected situation, CAIM will find another reviewer in time to avoid delays.

2.3.5 After receiving the comments, the editorial office will make an assessment. It is easy to make a decision on the unanimous opinion, while if there are "non-consensus issues" or even opposing opinions, the editor should judge based on professional knowledge. If not sure, the editorial office will send the manuscript online to other relevant editorial board member for review, and then make the final decision.

2.3.6 The review comments will be summarized and appropriately revised and then sent to the author through the online submission system or e-mail. For manuscripts that need to be revised, the revision instruction and requirements should be sent at the same time, and the authors will be required to reply to the opinions one by one.

2.3.7 According to the author's revision, the editorial department can decide to accept or reject the manuscript, and inform the author through the submission system or E-mail. For manuscripts with different opinions, the original reviewer can be invited to re-examine, if the reviewer believes that the revision meets the requirements or reasonable, the manuscript is accepted, otherwise rejected. If the author disagrees with the results, other peer experts can be invited to review the manuscript.

 

3. Final Review

The editorial department sends the revised manuscript to Expert review committee according to the peer review comments, and Expert review committee team makes the final judgment according to the different opinions of the reviews, the topic, research innovation, rationality, data processing methods, citations, academic value, etc and the direction and orientation of the journal, comprehensively considering the needs of column arrangement.