Peer review process

CMAJ and CMAJ Open

Last year, CMAJ rejected about 93% of submitted research manuscripts. Of these papers, some were offered transfer to CMAJ Open for consideration if the methodology and topic were suitable. About 65% of transferred research papers are ultimately accepted and published in CMAJ Open.

Contact CMAJ regarding peer review: editorial{at}cmaj.ca.

What kind of peer review do we use?

CMAJ's peer review process is single-blinded which means that reviewers know who the authors are, but authors don't know who the reviewers are.

How do we decide which papers to publish?

Our process
There are 3 steps in our process of peer review: selection of manuscripts for external review, selection for an editorial meeting, and offer of publication, subject to revision.

Selection for external referees' reports requires a majority decision from 3 editors. Most of the time, 2 editors will suffice because, after reading a submitted manuscript, they agree to either reject it without peer review or to request referees' reports. If the 2 editors disagree, a third editor's opinion is used as a tie breaker. About 75% of research manuscripts are rejected at this stage.
Provided that the referees' reports do not identify serious shortcomings, manuscripts are reviewed at an editorial meeting. A small proportion of manuscripts are rejected at this stage.
An offer of publication, subject to revision, is made for manuscripts selected after discussion at an editorial meeting. Generally, one-third of manuscripts discussed at this stage will receive an offer of publication. This meeting is attended by a minimum of 2 full-time editors, including the editor-in-chief or their deputy, 2 associate editors and a statistician.

Our criteria
CMAJ publishes research that is sound, relevant, important and novel.

Sound research flows from a clear research question, addressed by an appropriate study design carried out to a high standard.
We publish research that is relevant to our clinical readers. We consider the medical and surgical generalists who will be interested to read about their specialties as well as those from larger specialties and professions allied with medicine and health policy.
Importance is judged by asking what difference the article would make to clinical practice, health policy or the direction of future research.
Novelty relates to how much an article contributes to what is already known on the subject

The most common reasons for the rejection of research articles are that they are of low novelty or low relevance to our readers.

What we look for in an external referee's report

We ask referees to give us advice to help us decide whether to publish a manuscript and to help the authors make improvements. Reading a manuscript in detail and providing a constructive, thorough report typically takes 2–3 hours.

We find reports useful if they comment on the particular strengths and shortcomings of the manuscript and, if possible, how each shortcoming can be addressed. A critical appraisal of the research methods used and a comment about how well the authors have placed their research in the context of the literature helps us to decide the quality of the research.

What we most appreciate is a review of the importance and novelty of the research. Because CMAJ's editors are also practising clinicians, they can provide their views about how interesting they find a manuscript, but we cannot cover every specialty. We need to know if a manuscript represents a big step forward in an area or if the topic is already well-covered by other research.

Past Reviewers

CMAJ would like to thank the following peer reviewers who contributed their time and expertise to the journal. The contribution of these individuals has been vital to enhancing the quality of articles published in CMAJ and advancing the discourse of medicine.