Peer Review Policy

Review Model

JAIMS uses double-anonymous peer review for research articles and other scholarly submissions that require external scientific evaluation. Under this model, the identities of the authors are not disclosed to reviewers, and reviewer identities are not disclosed to authors during the review process. The journal seeks reviews from experts who possess relevant methodological, clinical, epidemiological, statistical, technological, or disciplinary expertise appropriate to the manuscript.

A minimum of two independent external reviewers is required for research articles. Additional reviewers may be invited where specialist expertise is required, where reviewer reports are substantially divergent, or where the Editor considers additional independent assessment necessary for a fair and well-supported editorial decision.

Initial Editorial Assessment

All submissions undergo an initial editorial assessment before external peer review. The assessment determines whether the manuscript falls within the journal's scope and meets the minimum requirements for scholarly consideration. Editors may assess the manuscript for originality, methodological adequacy, scientific and clinical relevance, ethical requirements, completeness, reporting quality, plagiarism or inappropriate text reuse, potential research misconduct, conflicts of interest, and compliance with the journal's submission requirements.

Editorial screening is not a substitute for external peer review. A manuscript that passes the initial assessment is not thereby considered scientifically acceptable or guaranteed publication. Manuscripts may be declined at the editorial screening stage when they are outside the journal's scope, fail to meet essential methodological or ethical requirements, or do not provide a sufficiently substantive contribution for consideration.

Selection and Independence of Reviewers

Reviewers are selected on the basis of subject expertise, methodological competence, relevant scholarly experience, and availability. Editors seek to avoid conflicts of interest and inappropriate reviewer relationships. Reviewers should not be selected solely because they were recommended by an author, and author-suggested reviewers are subject to the same independent verification and conflict-of-interest requirements as all other reviewers.

Reviewers must disclose any actual, potential, or perceived conflict of interest before accepting an assignment. A reviewer may be excluded where a conflict could reasonably compromise, or appear to compromise, independent judgment. The journal may also decline reviewer recommendations that present concerns regarding identity, independence, expertise, or potential manipulation of the review process.

Review Criteria

Reviewers are asked to provide an objective and evidence-based assessment of the manuscript. Depending on the article type, evaluation may include the following considerations:

• originality and significance of the research question;
• scientific and clinical relevance;
• appropriateness and rigor of the study design and methodology;
• adequacy and transparency of statistical analysis;
• validity, reliability, and reproducibility of the findings;
• interpretation of results and appropriateness of conclusions;
• ethical conduct and protection of research participants;
• reporting transparency and adherence to relevant reporting guidelines;
• appropriate treatment of limitations and potential sources of bias;
• quality and relevance of references; and
• overall contribution to medical and healthcare knowledge.

Additional Considerations for AI-Enabled Research

For manuscripts involving artificial intelligence or machine learning, reviewers may additionally assess the appropriateness of the dataset, data provenance, preprocessing, model development and validation, handling of missing data, prevention of data leakage, selection of performance measures, calibration and discrimination where applicable, external validation, generalizability, reproducibility, transparency, interpretability, algorithmic bias, fairness, clinical utility, human oversight, safety, and the relationship between technical performance and clinically meaningful outcomes. The journal places particular emphasis on whether an AI method addresses a substantive medical or healthcare question rather than merely demonstrating performance on a benchmark dataset.

Reviewer Confidentiality and Ethical Responsibilities

Manuscripts received for review are treated as confidential documents. Reviewers must not disclose, distribute, reproduce, use, or otherwise exploit unpublished information contained in a manuscript without authorization from the journal. Reviewers must conduct their assessments objectively, professionally, and constructively and must disclose any circumstance that could affect their impartiality.

Reviewers must not use generative artificial intelligence or other automated tools to generate, draft, or materially formulate peer review reports because such use may compromise manuscript confidentiality, introduce bias or fabricated information, or expose unpublished material to external systems. Routine language editing should not involve disclosure of confidential manuscript content to external AI systems. Any permitted use of automated tools by the journal is subject to appropriate human oversight and verification.

Editorial Decisions

The final editorial decision is made by the handling Editor or Editor-in-Chief after consideration of the manuscript, reviewer reports, authors' responses where applicable, and the overall scientific record. Reviewer recommendations are advisory and do not automatically determine the editorial outcome. Editors may request additional reviews or clarification when the available evidence is insufficient to support a fair decision.

Possible decisions include Accept, Minor Revision, Major Revision, and Reject. A revised manuscript may be returned to the original reviewers or assessed by new reviewers where appropriate. Acceptance is based on the manuscript's scientific merit and satisfactory resolution of substantive concerns; no manuscript is guaranteed acceptance on submission.

Divergent Reviewer Recommendations

Where reviewer recommendations substantially diverge, the handling editor will assess the reasoning and evidence presented in each report. The editor may seek an additional independent review where necessary. Editorial decisions are not determined solely by a numerical vote among reviewers; rather, they are based on the scientific substance, methodological quality, clinical relevance, ethical considerations, and evidentiary strength of the manuscript.

Revisions and Author Responses

Authors receiving a revision decision are expected to respond substantively to reviewer and editorial comments. Revised submissions should clearly identify changes made in the manuscript and provide a reasoned response to comments that have not been adopted. Failure to adequately address substantive concerns may result in further revision or rejection. Revised manuscripts remain subject to editorial assessment and, where appropriate, further external review.

Special Issues and Guest-Edited Content

Articles submitted to special issues are subject to the same editorial and peer review standards as articles submitted to regular issues. Guest editors may assist with manuscript development and reviewer selection within their approved remit, but the Editor-in-Chief retains ultimate responsibility for the editorial integrity and publication decisions of the journal. Manuscripts submitted by guest editors, editorial board members, or individuals with a relevant relationship to the special issue are subject to independent handling and review to protect against conflicts of interest and undue influence.

Article Types and Peer Review

Original Research Articles, Clinical Trials, Diagnostic and Prognostic Accuracy Studies, Real-World Evidence Studies, Systematic Reviews, Meta-Analyses, Methodological Studies, Research Protocols, and other scholarly research articles are subject to external peer review. Editorials, invited commentaries, letters, corrections, news items, and other non-research content may be subject to editorial assessment rather than external peer review where appropriate. The review status of any article type that follows an alternative process will be transparently identified in the journal's policies or article record.

Transparency of the Review Process

JAIMS maintains appropriate editorial records of manuscript submissions, reviewer invitations, reviewer reports, editorial decisions, revisions, and correspondence in accordance with applicable privacy, confidentiality, and record-retention requirements. The journal does not routinely publish reviewer reports or reviewer identities. Where peer review is an exception to the journal's standard process, the nature of the review received will be transparently indicated where appropriate.

Review Timelines

JAIMS aims to process manuscripts efficiently while maintaining the independence and quality of peer review. Review timelines may vary according to manuscript complexity, reviewer availability, the need for specialist expertise, and the extent of revision required. The journal does not guarantee acceptance or an unrealistically short review period. Where substantial delays occur, authors may be informed of the reason for the delay and, where appropriate, given the opportunity to withdraw the manuscript in accordance with the journal's withdrawal policy.

Appeals and Editorial Review

Authors may appeal an editorial decision when they can provide substantive grounds indicating that the decision resulted from a significant factual error, demonstrable misunderstanding of the manuscript, serious procedural irregularity, or relevant conflict of interest. Appeals must provide a clear and reasoned explanation addressing the specific grounds for appeal. An appeal does not guarantee reconsideration or publication. Where appropriate, an independent editor may assess the appeal to preserve impartiality.

Independent Review. Scientific Integrity. Clinical Relevance.

JAIMS considers peer review an essential component of responsible scholarly communication. The journal is committed to maintaining an independent, confidential, fair, transparent, and evidence-based editorial process in which publication decisions are determined by scientific and medical merit rather than authorship, institutional affiliation, nationality, commercial interest, or other irrelevant considerations.