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 reviewers 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 90 percent and a similarity index below 10 percent which will be checked using Grammarly and Turnitin Feedback Studio, respectively. 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.

Manuscripts clearing the preliminary screening proceed to evaluation by at least two external reviewers. Reviewers 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 Editor-in-Chief reviews all referee reports before issuing a decision to the authors. Publication requires favorable endorsements from at least two reviewers. The Editor-in-Chief ultimately decides on the acceptability of the manuscript based on the final recommendations of the reviewers and consults members of the Editorial Board where necessary. If no reviewers recommend acceptance or further revision, the paper will be rejected and 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 reviewers. 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 Associate Editor evaluates the revisions to ensure the authors have adequately addressed the feedback. The Editor-in-Chief 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. Authors are expected to submit revised manuscripts within the deadline indicated in the decision letter. As a general rule, minor revisions should be submitted within 30 days, while major revisions should be submitted within 90 days. For revisions requiring substantial additional work, authors may be allowed a longer revision period. The Corresponding Author will receive a reminder before the revision deadline. Authors who require additional time may request one extension, subject to the approval of the Editor-in-Chief. 

Failure to submit the revised manuscript or request an approved extension within the prescribed period may result in the manuscript being closed and rejected as inactive. Authors who wish to pursue publication after closure must submit the work as a new manuscript. Rejected or inactive submissions will be handled in accordance with the journal’s confidentiality, records-retention, and data-privacy policies.

Summary of the Peer Review Workflow

Submission → Preliminary screening (scope + guidelines; readability ≥ 90%, similarity < 10%) → Desk reject if failed; external peer review by ≥ 2 reviewers if passed → Editor-in-Chief evaluates reports and issues decision → If revision is invited, author submits point-by-point response + tracked changes + clean copy → Associate Editor checks revisions → Optional re-review only if required → Final decision by Editor-in-Chief (accept or reject).