PEER REVIEW PROCESS

e-CliniC (eCl) implements a rigorous and objective peer-review process to ensure the scientific quality, originality, clinical relevance, methodological rigor, and ethical integrity of published manuscripts.

The Editor-in-Chief assigns submitted manuscripts to the Managing Editor and relevant editors for initial assessment. Manuscripts meeting the journal's editorial requirements proceed to a double-blind peer-review process, in which the identities of authors and reviewers are concealed from each other.

Editorial and Peer-Review Stages

1. Manuscript Submission (Route 1)

Authors submit manuscripts through the official e-CliniC Online Journal System (OJS):

https://ejournal.unsrat.ac.id/v3/index.php/eclinic

The journal accepts Original Research Articles, Review Articles, and Case Reports in clinical medicine.

2. Initial Editorial Screening (Route 2)

The Managing Editor and relevant editors assess manuscripts based on:

  • Relevance to the journal's Focus and Scope.

  • Scientific originality, quality, and clinical significance.

  • Compliance with Author Guidelines and formatting requirements.

  • Completeness of manuscript information and required documentation.

  • Compliance with research and publication ethics, including ethical approval and patient consent where applicable.

Manuscripts undergo plagiarism and similarity screening using Turnitin, with an overall similarity index threshold of 20%. Similarity reports are evaluated editorially, considering the nature and context of textual overlap rather than relying solely on numerical percentages.

Manuscripts that fail to meet editorial requirements may be returned for correction or rejected before peer review.

3. Peer Review (Routes 3–4)

Manuscripts that pass initial screening are assigned to qualified reviewers with relevant expertise in clinical medicine.

e-CliniC applies a double-blind peer-review system to promote impartiality, confidentiality, and independent scholarly evaluation.

Reviewers evaluate manuscripts based on scientific originality, clinical relevance, research methodology, accuracy of results, quality of analysis, ethical compliance, and contribution to medical knowledge.

4. Editorial Decision (Route 5)

Based on reviewer recommendations and editorial assessment, the editor may issue one of the following decisions:

  • Accept

  • Minor Revision

  • Major Revision

  • Resubmit for Review

  • Reject

The final editorial decision is made independently by the responsible editor.

5. Author Revision

Authors receiving revision requests must address the reviewers' and editors' comments and make the necessary improvements to their manuscripts.

6. Submission of Revised Manuscript

Authors submit their revised manuscript through OJS, accompanied by a point-by-point response explaining how each comment has been addressed.

7. Final Editorial Evaluation and Acceptance (Route 6)

The editor evaluates the revised manuscript and may request additional peer-review rounds where necessary.

Manuscripts that satisfactorily meet the scientific, clinical, methodological, and ethical requirements may be formally accepted for publication.

8. Production and Publication (Routes 7–8)

Accepted manuscripts proceed through the publication process, including:

  • Copyediting and language editing.

  • Layout and typesetting.

  • Preparation of article proofs.

  • Author proof checking.

  • Final online publication.

Additional peer-review rounds may be conducted when substantial revisions or further expert evaluation are required.

Editorial Decisions

Accept: The manuscript meets the journal's publication standards and requires no substantial revisions.

Minor Revision: The manuscript requires limited corrections or clarification without major changes to its methodology or conclusions.

Major Revision: The manuscript requires substantial improvements in methodology, data analysis, interpretation, discussion, or presentation. Acceptance is not guaranteed.

Resubmit for Review: The manuscript requires extensive revision and further evaluation before an editorial decision can be reached.

Reject: The manuscript does not meet the journal's scientific, editorial, ethical, or clinical relevance requirements and will not proceed toward publication.

Confidentiality and Publication Ethics

Editors and reviewers must maintain confidentiality, disclose potential conflicts of interest, and evaluate manuscripts objectively.

All manuscripts involving human participants, patients, or clinical data must comply with applicable ethical requirements, including institutional ethical approval, informed consent, and patient confidentiality where relevant.

e-CliniC is committed to maintaining a transparent, fair, independent, and ethical peer-review process that supports the advancement of high-quality clinical medical research.