Peer Review Process

Saudi Journal of Critical Care and General Medicine (SJCCGM) follows a double-blind peer review process. Reviewer identities are not disclosed to authors, and author identities are not disclosed to reviewers.

1) Type of peer review

  • Double-blind peer review: both authors and reviewers remain anonymous to each other.
  • All submissions are treated as confidential by editors and reviewers.

2) Number of reviewers

  • Each manuscript that passes initial editorial screening is typically sent to at least two (2) independent external reviewers with relevant clinical and/or methodological expertise.
  • In some cases (specialized methodology, statistics, or conflicting reviews), the Editor may invite an additional reviewer or a statistical review.

3) Editorial decision flow

  1. Administrative check (Editorial Office):
    Completeness of submission, correct files for double-blind review, adherence to author guidelines, and basic ethical documentation (IRB approval/consent statements).
  2. Initial editorial screening (Editor-in-Chief / Associate Editor):
    Scope fit, originality, scientific merit, and methodological suitability. Manuscripts may be desk-rejected at this stage if out of scope or below minimum standards.
  3. External peer review:
    Eligible manuscripts are assigned to reviewers. Reviewers assess clinical relevance, methodology, ethics, reporting quality, and validity of conclusions.
  4. Editorial evaluation of reviews:
    The handling editor evaluates reviewer comments and makes a recommendation to the Editor-in-Chief.
  5. Decision:
    One of the following decisions is issued:
    • Accept
    • Minor Revision
    • Major Revision
    • Reject
  6. Revisions:
    Authors submit:
    • Revised manuscript
    • Point-by-point response to reviewers
    • Highlighted/track-changes version (recommended)
      Revisions may be returned to the original reviewers, especially after major revision, at the editor’s discretion.
  7. Final decision & production:
    After acceptance, the manuscript proceeds to copyediting, proofreading, and publication.

4) Timelines (realistic targets)

SJCCGM aims to provide timely decisions. Actual timing may vary depending on reviewer availability and revision cycles.

  • Initial editorial screening: usually within 7–14 days of submission
  • Peer review (external): usually 3–6 weeks from reviewer invitation acceptance
  • First decision (overall target): typically 4–8 weeks from submission
  • Author revision period:
    • Minor revision: 7–14 days
    • Major revision: 21–45 days
  • Final decision after revision: typically 1–3 weeks after resubmission (longer if re-review is needed)

SJCCGM may expedite review for time-sensitive manuscripts (public health emergencies) at the Editor’s discretion, without compromising peer-review standards.