Open Peer Review

Open Peer Review

Every article submitted to the journal is subjected to strict plagiarism check through our double check process involving software and manual checking. Once article passes through this step, articles are subjected to editorial review for scope, relevance and other standard requirements.

Scholarly Peer review is a very crucial process when processing the manuscript before publication. The quality of research work done by the authors will be evaluated by submitting to one or more people of similar competence of the same field of work. Scientific peer review is a quality-control system that analyzes whether all new scientific discoveries, innovations, ideas are analyzed and critiqued by expert scientists before they become widely accepted and appear online. Minimum three Peer review process is mandatory in all ClinicSearch journal in order to maintain the quality of the manuscript.

Peer review is the major quality maintenance measure for any academic journal. In this process, experts in the relevant fields analyze the scholarly work from every perspective, including its writing, the accuracy of its technical content, its documentation, and its impact on and significance to the discipline.

Reviewers play a pivotal role in scholarly publishing, and their valuable opinions certify the quality of the article under consideration. Peer review helps to ratify research, establishing a standard for evaluation within research communities.

How to peer review

Peer review is designed to assess the validity, quality and originality of articles for publication. Reviewers play an essential role in validating the research submitted and providing constructive feedback to the editors and authors. You can find more detail about the peer review process here.

ClinicSearch asks that its reviewers evaluate articles based on the requirements of the journal, quality, completeness and accuracy of the research presented. We also ask that reviewers abide by out Peer Reviewer Terms and Conditions to ensure that the process is robust.

Review Guide

For all articles:

  • In general, is the paper easy to follow and does it have a logical flow?
  • Did the authors make all their data (e.g. sequence reads, code, questionnaires used) available for the readers?
  • Is this paper novel and an advancement of the field, or have other people done very similar work?
For research articles  

• Originality- does the work add to what is already in the published literature? If so, what does it add? Please cite relevant references to support your comments on originality.

• Importance of the work to general readers -does this work matter to clinicians, researchers, policymakers, educators, or patients? Will it help our readers to make better decisions and, if so, how? Is the content appropriate for the journal?

• Scientific reliability

• Research question - is it clearly defined and appropriately answered?

• Overall design of study - is it appropriate and adequate to answer the research question?

• Participants - are they adequately described, the conditions defined, inclusion and exclusion criteria described? How representative were they of patients whom this evidence might affect?

• Methods - are they adequately described? Is the main outcome measure clear? Is the study fully reported in line with the appropriate reporting statement or checklist? (These are all collected and regularly updated at Was the study ethical? (This may go beyond simply whether the study was approved by an ethics committee or IRB)

• Results - do they answer the research question? Are they credible? Well presented?

• Interpretation and conclusions - are they warranted by and sufficiently derived from/focused on the data? Are they discussed in the light of previous evidence? Is the message clear?

• References -are they up to date and relevant? Are there any glaring omissions?

• Abstract/summary/key messages/what this paper adds - do they reflect accurately what the paper says?

• Documents in the supplemental files, e.g., checklists for reporting statements (see for other examples and for extensions to existing statements); and the protocol for an RCT. Do these properly match what is in the manuscript? Do they contain information that should be better reported in the manuscript, or raise questions about the work?

Peer Review Terms and Conditions

Peer reviewers play a central and critical part in the peer-review process. ClinicSearch requests that all reviewers adhere to a set of basic principles and standards during the peer-review process in research publication; these are set out below. Please read them carefully before you submit a review, as, by agreeing to be a reviewer for journals from ClinicSearch, you are acknowledging that you agree to and accept these conditions. These conditions are based on the Committee on Publication Ethics Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers which also provides further information on how to be objective and constructive in your review.

Conflicts of interest

During the review process we ask you to declare any potentially conflicting or competing interests (which could be personal, financial, intellectual, professional, political or religious in ClinicSearch) so that editors can assess these and factor them into their decisions. Please refer any major concerns over potentially competing interests to the editorial office before beginning your review. In addition, you should not agree to review a manuscript just to gain sight of it with no intention of submitting a review.


Manuscripts submitted to journals are authors’ private, confidential property; reviewers should keep manuscripts and the information they contain strictly confidential. If you do choose to discuss the manuscript and/or your review with a professional colleague whose input you request as part of your review process, you are responsible for ensuring that they are made fully aware of the confidential ClinicSearch of the discussion and that they must not disclose any information about the manuscript until the article is published. The identity of any co-reviewer and any potential conflicting or competing interests they may have must be disclosed when submitting your review. Reviewers should not retain the manuscript for personal use and should destroy copies after submitting their review.


If you feel qualified to judge a particular manuscript, you should agree to review only if you are able to return a review within the proposed or mutually agreed time-frame. If you cannot review, it is helpful to make suggestions for alternative reviewers if relevant, based on their expertise and without any influence of personal considerations or any intention of the manuscript receiving a specific outcome.

Scientific misconduct

If you have concerns that misconduct occurred during either the research or the writing and submission of the manuscript, or you may notice substantial similarity between the manuscript and a concurrent submission to another journal or a published article; please do let the journal Editor know.

Appropriate feedback

As a reviewer you must provide a fair, honest, and unbiased assessment of the strengths and weaknesses of the manuscript. For example, be specific in your critique, and provide supporting evidence with appropriate references to substantiate general statements. Be professional and refrain from being hostile or inflammatory and from making libelous or derogatory personal comments. If the work is not clear because of missing analyses, the reviewer should comment and explain what additional analyses would clarify the work submitted. It is not the job of the reviewer to extend the work beyond its current scope.

Our use of your review

With the exception of ClinicSearch Open access journals from ClinicSearch do not publish peer reviews. Depending on a journal’s editorial policy, you may be offered the opportunity to make additional confidential comments to the editor. Unless the reviewer has been offered confidentiality, reviews will usually be passed on in full to authors and other reviewers when an editorial decision is made. Reviews should be civil and constructive and editors reserve the right to edit or remove any comments felt to be inappropriate.

For more information on reviewing for ClinicSearch Open access, please read their reviewer guidelines.

(ClinicSearch Open aims to provide a service to authors and the research community by making as much research available as possible, provided it meets ClinicSearch’s high standards of research conduct and ethical procedure and is approved after peer review.

Guidance for peer reviewers

All unpublished manuscripts are confidential documents. If we invite you to review an article and you choose to discuss the manuscript with a colleague, please remind them of the confidential ClinicSearch of the paper and acknowledge their input in your review. Please also encourage colleagues to register as reviewers.

ClinicSearch Open uses an open form of peer review, meaning that authors will know who has reviewed their work. You will also be asked to give your name and position, and any relevant competing interests, in your report on any article we send you. Therefore, please do not make any comments that you do not wish the author to see.

If you have any serious concerns about a manuscript from a publication ethics perspective – for example if you believe you have encountered a case of plagiarism – you can contact the editorial office in confidence.

Restrictions on your use of your review

We do not restrict the use you make of your review once the manuscript has been published. However, an author’s manuscript remains confidential until it is published, and you must not disclose any information about an unpublished manuscript, including your review of it. Please note that if the article is NOT published you may refer to the journal which requested your review and the fact that you have reviewed an article for it. However, you may not post any details of the article which was reviewed, or any part of the review that would breach the confidentiality under which the article was provided to you for review.

The peer review process

Scholarly Peer review is a very crucial process when processing the manuscript before publication.

ClinicSearch following double blind peer review process: Authors and Reviewers names does not disclosure to each other.

Peer review process

This is a basic outline of the process, each journal has its own characteristics and so procedures and policies vary from title to title. If you are unable to find the answer to your question, our editorial team will be on hand to offer assistance throughout the peer review process. Contact details for the editorial team are on the journal’s Help page. You can also check the status of your manuscript at any time by logging into the journal’s submission site.

1. The Editor (and if appropriate the Associate Editors) will evaluate the manuscript for scope, fit, quality, originality, interest for the readership, etc. It will then be sent out for external peer review or rejected if it does not meet the criteria.

2. When the required number of reviews have been received (usually two) the Editor(s) will consider the experts’ opinions and make an initial decision to accept, reject, or request a revision.

3. If the decision is for revision, the author will be given sufficient time to review comments and revise their manuscript.

4. When submitting the revision, the author must ensure their response and revised manuscript correctly addresses each of the reviewers’ and/or Editors points (ClinicSearch will require a tracked changes version).

5. The revised manuscript will be re-evaluated by the original handling editor, who will either make an immediate decision or send the manuscript for further peer review prior to making a decision. Editors may request multiple manuscript revisions.


While we aim to complete the peer review process as quickly as possible, please bear in mind that reviewers give their time voluntarily. There may be occasions where several reviewers are invited before the required number can be arranged, or when a reviewer fails to deliver a review and the invitation process needs to start again. The average time to first decision is published on each journal’s website.

Article provenance

ClinicSearch is committed to transparency. Every article we publish includes a description of its provenance (commissioned or not commissioned) and whether it was internally or externally peer reviewed. Articles described as ‘internally peer reviewed’ will have been assessed by one or more of the journal’s editors.

Recognition for reviewers

Peer review may seem like a thankless task, but without it research would be unreliable. ClinicSearch values reviewers and wants to encourage good standards of review; here are some of the rewards that we offer:

Publon Metrics- Add our published articles to publons for verify, and showcase their peer review and editorial contributions for our academic journals.

APC discounts -Reviewers on our pure Open Access journals receive a 25% discount on OA charges if they submit an article as a corresponding author within a year of submitting their review.

Certificates for completed reviews are available upon request.

Become a reviewer

There are great benefits to becoming a reviewer; including staying up-to-date with the latest literature, advancing your career and establishing your expertise and reputation in the field. If you would like to volunteer to become a reviewer for ClinicSearch we recommend that you read more about the peer review process, how to review and our Peer Reviewer Terms and Conditions. Peer review may seem like a thankless task, but without it research would be unreliable. ClinicSearch offer several incentives to reward our reviewers.

To sign up as reviewer, you can register your details on the submission system,

ClinicSearch journals employ the peer review process in order to maintain academic standards and insure the validity of individual works submitted for publication. In addition, ClinicSearch follows double blinded peer review process, to ensure impartial editorial decision-making.

Depending on reviewer commentary and recommendations, manuscripts may be sent back to authors for revision. After the assistant editor receives the revised manuscript, it is assigned to the reviewer(s) once again, for approval of changes. But the final decision to publish is made by the Editor-in-Chief.

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