Peer Review Policy on Canadian Journal of Medicine (CJM) 

The practice of peer review is to ensure that the highest quality research paper is published in the Canadian Journal of Medicine (CJM). The reviewers of the CJM play a key role in establishing and enforcing the high standards of the CJM. All manuscripts submitted are double-blind peer-reviewed.

Initial Manuscript Evaluation

The editor-in-chief first evaluates all submissions. Submissions rejected at this stage are not original research, have serious scientific flaws in terms of the research question(s) and hypotheses, data collection, data analysis, and discussion have poor language in terms of structure, jargon, and genre, or are not in the scope of the CJM. Corresponding Authors of manuscripts rejected at the initial manuscript evaluation stage will be informed within 2 weeks of receipt.

The manuscripts that meet the minimum criteria are sent for double-blind review by at least 2 anonymous experts in the field of medicine.

Double-Blind Review

The reviewers are requested to evaluate whether the manuscript is original research, is methodologically sound and robust, covers the most relevant literature review, has results that are clearly and concisely presented, has an elaborated discussion based on the research questions and hypotheses, and provides practical implications and suggestions for future research. This stage of review takes 4-5 weeks.

The Evaluation Criteria 

  • The title properly reflects the subject of the paper
  • The abstract properly explains the summary of the paper considering purpose, design/methodology/approach, findings, practical implications, and originality/value. 
  • Introduction: properly sets out the argument, summarizes recent studies related to the topic, identifies gaps in current understanding or conflicts in current knowledge, statement of the problem, argues the originality of the research aims by demonstrating the need for investigations in the topic area, the novelty, and reasons for conducting the research, stating the research aims
  • Overall quality, scientific originality, and significance for theory and practice
  • Contribution to the field, complementary, interdisciplinarity, and awareness of preceding research
  • The literature review, critical discussion of past empirical studies, gap identification
  • Theoretical framework and conceptual rationale
  • Clear definition of the research questions and hypotheses
  • Research methodology, context, rationale, objectives, data collection procedure, research design and methods appropriate for the research question, enough detail to replicate the research, sampling procedure and potential bias
  • Data analysis
  • Clarity of the results and appropriateness of the interpretations, and evaluation, results presented match the methods, data described in the text consistent with the data in the figures and tables
  • Discussions: logically explain the findings, compare the findings with current findings in the research field, implications of the findings for future research and potential applications discussed, conclusions drawn by the data presented and findings, limitations of the study, 
  • Language errors, clear and concise style, and scholarly writing
  • Usefulness and quality of images and figures, properly show the data,  easy to interpret and understand
  • Style and referencing, any references missing, properly citing, most recent references

Reviewers' general recommendation:

  • Accept
  • Minor Revision
  • Major Revision
  • Reject & Resubmit
  • Reject

Reviewers' recommendation for the quality of written language:

  • It is not suitable for publication unless extensively revised and edited
  • It needs some corrections and improvements before being published
  • It is acceptable

Reviewers' recommendation for the level of interest:

  • It is an exceptional article
  • It is important in its field
  • Its findings are important to those with closely related research interests
  • It is an article of limited interest

Reviewers can provide confidential comments to the editors.

Reviewers ought to provide comments, preferably specific and detailed, to the author.

Editor’s Decision is Final

Reviewers advise the editor-in-chief, who is responsible for the final decision to accept or reject the manuscript.

Guidelines for Journal Reviewers

Please click here to learn more about the following topics and the review procedure:


  • Basic principles to which peer reviewers should adhere
  • Expectations during the peer-review process
  • During review
  • Preparing the review report
  • Expectations post review