CMI Review Process
Before authored manuscript are disseminated to the reviewers, the author(s) shall be invited to make presentation of their paper(s) at the CMI organized validation workshop. During the workshop, each of the papers will be appraised for content, substance, and relevance to the CMI TORs. Reviewers will not receive any manuscripts that are clearly inappropriate.
Manuscripts that are approved for review will be coded and electronically assigned to a minimum of two appropriate reviewers. The reviewers will be given at most two weeks to review the manuscript, paying particular attention to the comments made in the validation workshop. Upon completion of the review, the comments thereof will be returned to the CMI secretariat, who then shall assess and decide whether or not to consider the manuscripts for the CMI Working Paper Series. Note that authors of rejected manuscripts will not have the opportunity to resubmit revised versions. CMI secretariat will aim to handle all rejections in a courteous manner, detailing specific reasons for rejection.
Since it is extremely rare for an article to be accepted without any changes demanded, it is likely that authors will have to revise their manuscripts that are approved for consideration in accordance with reviewer’s comments. Thereafter, the author(s) shall re-submit the paper to the secretariat, who shall ensure that all issues raised have been satisfactorily addressed or that justification has been given where revisions are not plausible. Note that where necessary, CMI may choose to seek consensus of the original reviewer on the extent of the claim of the revisions.
Role of the Review Team
As a reviewer, your role is to professionally review the technical research papers submitted to CMI, particularly in relation to the use of language, technical layout and content, and presentation of research findings. The review team shall provide advice and recommendations to CMI on submitted articles, including honest opinions about each of the articles’ suitability for publication.
On receipt of the invitation to review
Determine that the subject is within your area of expertise and that you can complete the review in the stated time period. If you accept the invitation to review, you will be expected to ensure that it holds no conflict of interest for your personal research or institutional relationships and that you may judge the manuscript impartially. If a conflict exists, either with regards to time or research interests, contact CMI secretariat immediately.
Do not discuss the paper with its authors either during or after the review process
CMI secretariat aims to maintain the integrity of the review process, ensuring it is as blind as possible. However, in the unlikely event that you find it sensible to discuss uncertainties in a manuscript directly with the author, especially if you are promoting its improvement and publication and do not mind revealing your identity, CMI strongly prohibits you from doing so. This is especially because other reviewers, or the editor in chief, may not necessarily agree with your recommendations.
The manuscript provided to you is a privileged document
Please protect it from any form of exploitation. Do not cite a manuscript or refer to the work it describes before it has been published and do not use the information that it contains for the advancement of your own research or in discussion with colleagues.
Organise your comments
Your review should start with an introductory paragraph that summarises the major findings of the article, gives your overall opinion of the paper and touches on major shortcomings. The remainder of the review should contain specific, numbered, comments that discuss individual areas for improvement in more detail. Comments may be divided into major and minor points where appropriate.
Recommendations should be recognised as such and should not be expressed as conditions of acceptance. Do not make statements about the acceptability of a paper. The final decision regarding acceptance or rejection of a manuscript rests solely with the editor. Do not make dogmatic or dismissive statements, particularly about the novelty of the work. Reviewer’s comments are gratefully received by the CMI, however since editorial decisions are usually based on evaluations derived from several sources, reviewers should not expect the editor to adopt every recommendation. Acceptance and publication of original manuscripts is a competitive process; as reviewers, your task is to provide a positive, impartial, but critical evaluation of manuscripts to ensure all published articles are of exceptional quality.
Criticism should be presented constructively and dispassionately; offensive remarks are not acceptable.
Manuscripts must be reviewed and evaluated according to the following dimensions:
Relevance to the CMI TORs
Sensible title and abstract
Appropriate literature discussion and citations
Appropriateness of figures and tables
Adequate and appropriate methodological approaches
Appropriate statistical analysis, and sound interpretation of results and conclusion
It is not a requirement for reviewers to correct deficiencies of style, syntax, or grammar, but where the writing is not clear, clarification of the subject matter will be appreciated. In particular it may be useful to acknowledge the use and/or misuse of economic jargons, incorrect citations, incorrect specification of econometric equations, inappropriate definitions of model terms, and the use of misspelled, incorrect or outdated econometric models.