Clinical Microbiology Reviews Submission Guide
A practical Clinical Microbiology Reviews (CMR) submission guide for clinical microbiologists evaluating their proposed synthesis against the journal's invited model.
Associate Professor, Clinical Medicine & Public Health
Author context
Specializes in clinical and epidemiological research publishing, with direct experience preparing manuscripts for NEJM, JAMA, BMJ, and The Lancet.
Readiness scan
Find out if this manuscript is ready to submit.
Run the Free Readiness Scan before you submit. Catch the issues editors reject on first read.
Quick answer: This Clinical Microbiology Reviews submission guide is for clinical microbiologists evaluating whether to send a proposal. CMR is invited-leaning. The standard path is a pre-submission inquiry establishing scope, timing, author authority, and candidate length.
If you're considering CMR, the main risk is not formatting. It is proposing a topic where a recent comprehensive review already exists or where the author team's primary-research depth doesn't match the clinical-microbiology subfield.
From our manuscript review practice
Of pre-submission proposals we've reviewed for Clinical Microbiology Reviews, the most consistent rejection trigger is author authority gaps relative to the proposed clinical-microbiology subfield.
How this page was created
This page was researched from Clinical Microbiology Reviews's author guidelines, ASM editorial-policy materials, Clarivate JCR data, SciRev community reports, and Manusights internal analysis of pre-submission proposals.
Clinical Microbiology Reviews Journal Metrics
Metric | Value |
|---|---|
Impact Factor (2024 JCR) | 14.7 |
5-Year Impact Factor | ~22+ |
CiteScore | 32.8 |
Acceptance Rate | ~15-25% |
First Decision (proposal) | 4-6 weeks |
Publisher | American Society for Microbiology |
Source: Clarivate JCR 2024, ASM editorial disclosures (accessed April 2026).
CMR Submission Requirements and Timeline
Requirement | Details |
|---|---|
Submission portal | ASM Editorial Manager |
Initial step | Pre-submission proposal preferred |
Proposal length | 1-2 pages |
Review article length | 30-80 pages |
References | 200-400+ |
Cover letter | Required |
Proposal response | 4-6 weeks |
Full manuscript decision | 8-16 weeks |
Source: Clinical Microbiology Reviews author guidelines.
Submission snapshot
What to pressure-test | What should already be true before proposing |
|---|---|
Topic timing | No comprehensive review on topic in CMR or Lancet ID in last 5 years |
Author authority | Sustained primary-research publications in clinical microbiology subfield |
Scope breadth | Topic supports 30-80 page comprehensive treatment |
Synthesis argument | Specific framework the field needs |
Clinical relevance | Direct implications for clinical practice or public health |
What this page is for
Use this page when deciding:
- whether the topic has timing headroom
- whether the author team supports the authority CMR requires
- whether the scope justifies a 30-80 page treatment
What should already be in the proposal
- specific clinical microbiology topic and synthesis value
- "why now" inflection (outbreak, AMR development, diagnostic breakthrough)
- differentiation from existing reviews
- author CVs with primary-research evidence in clinical microbiology
Package mistakes that trigger proposal rejection
- Recent comprehensive coverage of the same topic.
- Author standing in adjacent rather than central clinical-microbiology subfield.
- Synthesis argument missing.
- Insufficient clinical relevance.
What makes Clinical Microbiology Reviews a distinct target
CMR is ASM's flagship clinical-microbiology review venue.
Authority-driven selection: reviews are read as authoritative because authors built the field they're synthesizing.
The 5-year timing window: rarely commissions on recently-covered topics.
Clinical relevance expectation: unlike general microbiology venues, CMR expects direct clinical or public-health implications.
What a strong proposal sounds like
The strongest CMR proposals sound like a senior clinical microbiologist briefing the editor on a synthesis the field needs.
Readiness check
Run the scan against the requirements while they're in front of you.
See score, top issues, and journal-fit signals before you submit.
Diagnosing pre-proposal problems
Problem | Fix |
|---|---|
Topic was recently covered | Sharpen to a clearly distinct angle |
Author authority is thin | Bring in a senior co-author with primary-research depth |
Synthesis argument unclear | Articulate the specific framework |
How CMR compares against nearby alternatives
Method note: the comparison reflects published author guidelines and Manusights internal analysis. We have not personally been CMR authors; the boundary is publicly documented editorial behavior. Pros and cons are based on documented editorial scope.
Factor | Clinical Microbiology Reviews | Nature Reviews Microbiology | Lancet Infectious Diseases | Annual Review of Microbiology |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Best fit (pros) | Comprehensive clinical-microbiology synthesis (30-80 pages) | Broad microbiology synthesis | Clinical infectious disease research and reviews | Authoritative annual microbiology synthesis |
Think twice if (cons) | Topic is broader microbiology | Topic is highly clinical | Topic is comprehensive review rather than focused research/short review | Topic is too narrow for annual-review treatment |
Submit If
- the proposed topic supports a 30-80 page comprehensive synthesis
- the corresponding author has sustained primary-research publications in clinical microbiology
- a specific recent inflection justifies the timing
- clinical relevance is clear
Think Twice If
- the author team is established in adjacent rather than central clinical microbiology
- a comprehensive CMR or Lancet ID piece appeared recently
- the proposal is "advances in [topic]" without a synthesis argument
- the topic lacks direct clinical relevance
What to read next
Before drafting the proposal, run it through a Clinical Microbiology Reviews proposal-readiness check.
In our pre-submission review work with manuscripts targeting Clinical Microbiology Reviews
In our pre-submission review work with proposals targeting CMR, three patterns generate the most consistent rejections.
In our experience, roughly 35% of CMR proposal rejections trace to author-authority mismatch. In our experience, roughly 30% involve timing collisions with recent CMR or Lancet Infectious Diseases pieces. In our experience, roughly 20% arise from proposals reading as comprehensive surveys without a specific synthesis argument.
- Author standing is in adjacent rather than central clinical-microbiology subfield. CMR editors weigh authority heavily. We observe proposals from authors with primary research in adjacent areas (general microbiology without clinical focus) routinely declined.
- A comprehensive review of the topic appeared recently. CMR editors check Lancet ID, NRMicro, and recent CMR issues. Proposals overlapping recent reviews are routinely declined.
- The proposal is a survey, not a synthesis. Editors look for a specific framework. We find that proposals framed as "comprehensive review of recent progress" are routinely returned. A CMR proposal-readiness check can identify whether the package supports a successful submission.
Clarivate JCR 2024 bibliometric data places CMR among top clinical microbiology review journals. SciRev author-reported data confirms 4-6 week proposal evaluation windows.
Frequently asked questions
Clinical Microbiology Reviews is invited-leaning. The standard path is a pre-submission inquiry to the editorial office: scope, why now, candidate authors. If editors are interested, they invite a full submission. Unsolicited full manuscripts are accepted but evaluated against the same authority and timing standards.
Comprehensive review articles on clinical microbiology and infectious disease topics: bacterial pathogens, viral diseases, fungal infections, parasitic diseases, antimicrobial resistance, diagnostics, and clinical management. Reviews typically run 30-80 pages with 200-400+ references.
Acceptance rate runs ~15-25%. The journal is the American Society for Microbiology's flagship clinical-microbiology review venue. Median time from proposal acceptance to publication is 6-12 months.
Most rejections involve timing collisions with recent CMR or Lancet Infectious Diseases reviews, author authority gaps in clinical microbiology, or scope too narrow for the 30-80 page comprehensive treatment.
Sources
Before you upload
Choose the next useful decision step first.
Move from this article into the next decision-support step. The scan works best once the journal and submission plan are clearer.
Use the scan once the manuscript and target journal are concrete enough to evaluate.
Anthropic Privacy Partner. Zero-retention manuscript processing.
Where to go next
Supporting reads
Conversion step
Choose the next useful decision step first.
Use the scan once the manuscript and target journal are concrete enough to evaluate.