Editorial and Peer Review Policy

Cellular & Molecular Intelligence (CMI) maintains a rigorous evaluation process to ensure the publication of high-quality, impactful research. Our editorial policy is designed to be transparent, efficient, and fair to all contributors.

CMI welcomes a diverse range of contributions, including original research, reviews, case reports, short communications, and methodological papers. To be considered for publication, manuscripts must meet the following criteria:

Originality: The work must be original and not currently under consideration by any other journal.

Ethical Compliance: Authors must provide mandatory documentation of ethics committee or Institutional Review Board (IRB) approval for all studies involving human or animal subjects.

Standards: Submissions must adhere strictly to the journal’s formatting and ethical guidelines.

The journey from submission to publication follows a structured, multi-stage path:

1. Editorial Screening

Every manuscript undergoes an initial assessment by the Editor-in-Chief or Section Editors. They evaluate the work for scope relevance, novelty, ethical integrity, and general quality. Manuscripts that do not meet these fundamental standards may be desk-rejected to prevent unnecessary delays for the authors.

2. Peer Review

Qualifying manuscripts enter a single-blind peer review process. Each paper is evaluated by at least two independent experts in the field who assess scientific validity, methodological rigor, clarity, and clinical or biological significance.

3. Editorial Decision

Based on the reviewers' reports, the editors will issue one of the following decisions:

• Accept: The manuscript is ready for publication.

• Minor Revision: Small changes or clarifications are required.

• Major Revision: Significant technical or conceptual improvements are needed.

• Reject: The manuscript does not meet the journal's requirements for publication.

When a revision is requested, authors must provide a point-by-point response addressing all reviewer comments. If substantial changes are made, the editor may return the manuscript to the original reviewers for a second look.

Final publication decisions rest solely with the editorial board to ensure complete independence, consistency, and adherence to the highest scientific standards.

CMI is committed to a fair, transparent, and rigorous editorial process. We recognize that authors may occasionally disagree with editorial outcomes or have concerns regarding the conduct of the review. Our appeals and complaints procedure ensures that such cases are handled with objectivity and integrity.

Authors have the right to appeal a formal rejection if they believe the decision was based on a technical error, a misunderstanding of the data, or a failure to consider specific evidence presented in the manuscript.

Requirements: Appeals must be submitted in writing and include a detailed rebuttal letter.

Evidence-Based: The rebuttal must point-by-point address the reviewers’ and editors’ comments, providing scientific evidence or clarification to support the authors' position.

Scope: Appeals based purely on a difference of opinion regarding "impact" or "interest level" are rarely successful; the focus should remain on factual or methodological corrections.