IMCC Journal of Science

IMCC Journal of Science upholds the integrity of its publications through a strict double-blind peer review system where the identities of authors and reviewers remain confidential. The Editorial Board identifies and assigns qualified referees based on their subject matter expertise to provide a thorough and objective assessment of the manuscript.

Upon submission, the editorial office conducts a preliminary screening to verify alignment with the journal’s scope and adherence to the Author Guidelines. This initial evaluation specifically requires a readability score of at least 80 percent and a similarity index below 10 percent. Manuscripts failing to meet these technical standards or falling outside the thematic focus of the journal face immediate rejection. Authors receive notification regarding the result of this preliminary check. Advancement to the peer review stage indicates the paper is technically sound but implies no guarantee of eventual publication. To facilitate an efficient review cycle, authors should utilize licensed plagiarism detection software and conduct comprehensive proofreading prior to submission.

Manuscripts clearing the initial screening proceed to evaluation by at least two external experts. Referees analyze the work based on originality, scientific rigor, methodology, ethical compliance, and scholarly contribution. Strict confidentiality protocols bind all reviewers and prohibit the disclosure of manuscript details to third parties (see Publication Ethics and Publication Malpractice Policy). While the journal aims to return feedback within one month, the required depth of analysis may extend this timeline to three months. The Chief Editor reviews all referee reports before issuing a decision to the authors. Publication requires favorable endorsements from at least two reviewers. The Chief Editor ultimately decides on the acceptability of the manuscript based on the final recommendations of the referees and consults members of the Editorial Board where necessary. If no referees recommend acceptance or further revision, the editorial office closes the review process immediately. This policy provides authors with the opportunity to decide promptly whether to resubmit the work for another round of evaluation or submit it to another journal.

Authors receive the opportunity to revise the manuscript in accordance with the evaluation of the referees. While authors are not required to adopt every recommendation made by the reviewers, the journal requires a minimum response regarding each comment and suggestion. The response must clearly state the intended action and include revisions as appropriate. To facilitate this re-evaluation, authors must submit three specific documents. The first required file is a detailed point-by-point response addressing every comment and query raised by the referees. The second document must be a version of the revised manuscript with all changes clearly highlighted to help reviewers identify modifications. The third requirement is a clean copy of the revised manuscript without any visible tracking marks or highlights.

Following the receipt of these documents, the Managing Editor evaluates the revisions to ensure the authors have adequately addressed the feedback. The Chief Editor subsequently makes the final decision regarding the acceptance of the manuscript. The editorial office generally does not return the revised work to the original peer reviewers for further comment. A secondary review by the original referees occurs only if a reviewer explicitly indicated in the initial report that a verification of the revisions was necessary. The journal allows a maximum period of six months for authors to complete these revisions. The Corresponding Author will receive a reminder if the manuscript remains inactive near the end of this interval. Authors may request a single extension of one month if they require additional time. Failure to submit the revised documents or request an extension within the allotted time results in automatic rejection. If the editorial office receives no communication within one week following the expiration of the extension, the system classifies the submission as inactive and permanently deletes it from the archives. Authors wishing to pursue publication after this point must restart the entire submission process as a new entry.