ClinicSearch follows WAME definitions and leaves the complete freedom of the editorial process to the Editor-in-chief with all the authority in determining the fate of the articles towards publication and a responsibility to uphold the Journal’s Integrity. The articles published under any journal of ClinicSearch are in relation with the scope, relevancy, potential Interest, scientific strength completeness, clarity and ethics. The act of decision to determine the fate of the manuscript, to publish or reject is never affected by author's origin nationality, ethnicity, race, religion or political beliefs. No other private or government policies or agencies away from the journal can determine the decision. The decisions are purely with respect to the innovation, novelty, quality and scientific importance to the readers.

Editor Guidelines

Editor/Editor-in-Chief plays a vital role in publication procedure right from formation of the editorial board to publishing of manuscripts. Editor/Editor-in-Chief fosters the quality of a publication and the overall content of the journal by rendering services to Open Access through their eminence in research & expertise in their respective field.

Editor plays an important role in maintaining the quality and standards of the journal. Editors of ClinicSearchOpen Access Journals are expected to take the complete responsibility for the journals, and should monitor the entire publication process.

ClinicSearch Open Access Journals invites scientists, researchers, academicians, medical practitioners, and scholars who have interest to serve as an editor. ClinicSearch publishes in more than 40 peer reviewed journals in the field of Science & Technology.

Summary of The Editorial Process

1.The author submits a manuscript and it receives a tracking number.

2.An editor is assigned to the manuscript.

3.The editorial team decides whether to send the manuscript out to review. If the decision is not to send the manuscript for review, the editor contacts the author with the decision.

4.The editor assigns potential reviewers to the manuscript and the author is notified.

5.Reviewers agree to review the manuscript.

6.Reviewers submit their reports to the editor.

7.The editorial team discusses the reports and the editor makes the final decision. This process may involve further consultation with the reviewers and editor-mediated communications between the reviewers.

8.The editor contacts the author with the decision.

9.If the decision is negative, the author is given the opportunity to transfer their manuscript to another journal. If the manuscript was peer reviewed, the referee comments are also transferred. Please see our Manuscript Transfer FAQ for more information about this service.

Manuscript Transfer FAQ

Manuscript transfer frequently asked questions The ClinicSearch journals and other journals published by ClinicSearch are committed to providing the highest standards of service to authors in their submission and peer-review processes. If the editors of a journal decide that they cannot offer to publish an author’s manuscript, our redesigned manuscript transfer facility allows authors to easily resubmit their existing manuscript materials to a selection of other journals published by ClinicSearch.

Initial Submission

Papers should be submitted via the online submission system. Each new submission is assigned to a primary editor, who reads the paper, consults with the other editors and decides whether it should be sent for peer review. The author should identify whether the work described in the manuscript has been discussed with a specific ClinicSearch Catalysis editor before submission. Many papers describing solid studies of interest to those in the field are nonetheless judged to be unlikely to compete successfully with the best work submitted to the journal. Like other journals in the ClinicSearch family, ClinicSearch Catalysis has no external editorial board. However, if a paper's importance within the field is unclear, an editor may request advice from outside experts in deciding whether to review it. The novelty of a submitted paper is considered to be compromised if it has significant conceptual overlap with a published paper or one accepted for publication by ClinicSearch Catalysis. Preprint archives do not compromise novelty. If a paper was previously reviewed at another ClinicSearch journal, the authors can use an automated manuscript transfer service to transfer the referees' reports to ClinicSearch Catalysis via a link sent by the editor who handled the manuscript. In that case, the journal editors will take the previous reviews into account when making their decision, although in some cases the editors may choose to take advice from additional or alternative referees. Alternatively, authors may choose to request a fresh review, in which case they should not use the automated transfer link, and the editors will evaluate the paper without reference to the previous review process. However, this decision must be made at the time of initial submission and cannot be changed later. If the authors ask the editors to consider the previous reviews, they should include a note explaining the relationship between the submitted manuscript and the previous submission and (assuming it has been revised in light of the referees’ criticisms) giving a point-by-point response to the referees. In cases where the work was felt to be of high quality, papers can sometimes be accepted without further review, but if there were serious criticisms, the editors will consider them in making the decision. In the event of publication, the received date is the date of submission to ClinicSearch Catalysis. Details of the manuscript transfer service are available here.

Peer Review

The corresponding author is notified by e-mail when the editor decides to send a paper for review. Authors may suggest referees; these suggestions are often helpful, although they are not always followed. By policy, referees are not identified to the authors, except at the request of the referee. Authors may request double-blind peer review, so that their names and affiliations are withheld from reviewers of their papers. Conceptually similar manuscripts are held to the same editorial standards as far as possible, and so they are often sent to the same referees. However, when related manuscripts are submitted together, each of the co-submitted manuscripts must meet the criteria for publication without reference to the other paper. Thus if one paper is substantially less complete or convincing than the other, it may be rejected, even if the papers reach the same conclusion.

Decision After Review and Revision

When making a decision after review, editors consider not only how good the paper is now, but also how good it might become after revision. In cases where the editor determines that the authors should be able to address the referees’ concerns in six months or less, the editor may request a revised manuscript that addresses these concerns. The editor will often provide specific guidance to the author with regard to referee requests and those that must be addressed versus those that are at the author’s discretion or should be ignored, possibly as a result of further consultation between the editor and referees that is not captured in the peer review comments. The revised version is normally sent back to some or all of the original referees for re-review. The decision letter will specify a deadline, and revisions that are returned within this period will retain their original submission date.

In cases where the referees’ concerns are very serious and appear unlikely to be addressed within six months, the editor will normally reject the manuscript. If the editor feels the work is of potential interest to the journal, however, they may express interest in seeing a future resubmission. The resubmitted manuscript may be sent back to the original referees or to new referees, at the editor’s discretion. In such cases, revised manuscripts will not retain their earlier submission date. In either case, the revised manuscript should be accompanied by a cover letter that includes a point-by-point response to the referees’ comments and an explanation of how the manuscript has been changed. An invited revision should be submitted via the revision link to the online submission system provided in the decision letter, not as a new manuscript.

Final Submission and Acceptance

A request for final submission is sent when the paper is nearly ready to publish. These letters describe any remaining changes required by the editor and are accompanied by detailed comments on the paper’s format from the copy editor. At this stage, authors may receive an extensively edited manuscript from the editor indicating editorial concerns that must be addressed in the revision. A priority of ClinicSearch Catalysis is that all papers be accessible to non-specialists. Manuscripts are subject to substantial editing to achieve this goal. After acceptance, a copy editor may make further changes so that the text and figures are readable and clear to those outside the field, and so that papers conform to our style. ClinicSearch Catalysis uses Oxford English spelling.

For the final revision, authors should use the revision link to the online submission system provided in the decision letter to upload a final version of the text with all the requested format changes. Electronic files of the final figures, at high resolution, should be uploaded or sent separately via ftp.

When all remaining editorial issues have been resolved, the paper is formally accepted. The received date is the date on which the author submitted the original (or if previously rejected, the resubmitted) manuscript. The accepted date is when the editor sends the acceptance letter.

Authors are sent proofs and are welcome to discuss proposed changes with the editors, but ClinicSearch Catalysis reserves the right to make the final decision about matters of style and the size of figures.


Even in cases where editors did not invite resubmission, some authors ask the editors to reconsider a rejection decision. These are considered appeals, which, by policy, must take second place to the normal workload. Although we strive to provide a decision on an appeal within 14 days, on some occasions it may take several weeks.

Decisions are reversed on appeal only if the editors are convinced that the original decision was made in error or critical new information or data has been added. If the manuscript was previously reviewed the editor may also discuss the appeal with one or more of the referees or even obtain advice from an additional referee. If the manuscript was not reviewed the editor may solicit informal opinions from one or more external experts.

Authors who wish to submit their manuscript elsewhere while it is under appeal at our journal must first withdraw their appeal.

Clinical Trials and Clinical Research: I am delighted to provide a testimonial for the peer review process, support from the editorial office, and the exceptional quality of the journal for my article entitled “Effect of Traditional Moxibustion in Assisting the Rehabilitation of Stroke Patients.” The peer review process for my article was rigorous and thorough, ensuring that only high-quality research is published in the journal. The reviewers provided valuable feedback and constructive criticism that greatly improved the clarity and scientific rigor of my study. Their expertise and attention to detail helped me refine my research methodology and strengthen the overall impact of my findings. I would also like to express my gratitude for the exceptional support I received from the editorial office throughout the publication process. The editorial team was prompt, professional, and highly responsive to all my queries and concerns. Their guidance and assistance were instrumental in navigating the submission and revision process, making it a seamless and efficient experience. Furthermore, I am impressed by the outstanding quality of the journal itself. The journal’s commitment to publishing cutting-edge research in the field of stroke rehabilitation is evident in the diverse range of articles it features. The journal consistently upholds rigorous scientific standards, ensuring that only the most impactful and innovative studies are published. This commitment to excellence has undoubtedly contributed to the journal’s reputation as a leading platform for stroke rehabilitation research. In conclusion, I am extremely satisfied with the peer review process, the support from the editorial office, and the overall quality of the journal for my article. I wholeheartedly recommend this journal to researchers and clinicians interested in stroke rehabilitation and related fields. The journal’s dedication to scientific rigor, coupled with the exceptional support provided by the editorial office, makes it an invaluable platform for disseminating research and advancing the field.


Dr Shiming Tang

Clinical Reviews and Case Reports, The comment form the peer-review were satisfactory. I will cements on the quality of the journal when I receive my hardback copy


Hameed khan