Peer Review Process

1. Overview of the Peer Review Process

The Academic International Journal of Medical Sciences (AIJMS) applies a rigorous peer review process to ensure the academic quality, originality, relevance, and integrity of all published articles in the field of medical and health sciences. Peer review serves as a critical mechanism for evaluating scholarly merit, improving manuscript quality, and maintaining high ethical and scientific standards.

2. Type of Peer Review

AIJMS adopts a double-blind peer review system, in which the identities of both authors and reviewers remain anonymous throughout the review process. This approach promotes objectivity and minimizes potential bias.

3. Initial Editorial Screening

Upon submission, manuscripts undergo an initial assessment by the Editor-in-Chief or an assigned editor to evaluate scope, originality, scientific quality, formatting compliance, and ethical standards. Manuscripts that do not meet these requirements may be rejected without external review.

At this stage, submissions are screened for plagiarism using Turnitin or similar software. Similarity reports are interpreted carefully, excluding references, commonly used methodological descriptions, and standard terminology. Excessive or inappropriate similarity may result in rejection or a request for revision. Manuscripts are also reviewed for responsible and transparent use of AI-assisted tools in accordance with international publishing ethics.

4. Reviewer Selection and Assignment

Manuscripts that pass the initial screening are assigned to two or more independent reviewers with relevant expertise. Reviewers are selected based on academic qualifications, subject knowledge, and the absence of conflicts of interest.

5. Review Criteria

Reviewers evaluate manuscripts based on the following criteria:

  • Originality and contribution to medical knowledge
  • Relevance to the journal’s scope
  • Scientific and methodological rigor
  • Ethical compliance (including IRB approval and informed consent where applicable)
  • Quality of data analysis and interpretation
  • Clarity, coherence, and academic writing quality

6. Reviewer Reports and Recommendations

Reviewers provide constructive, detailed feedback and make one of the following recommendations:

  • Accept without revision
  • Accept with minor revisions
  • Major revisions required (revise and resubmit)
  • Reject

7. Editorial Decision-Making

The editorial team makes the final decision based on reviewer reports, manuscript quality, and alignment with the journal’s objectives. In cases of conflicting reviews, additional expert opinions may be sought.

8. Revision Process

Authors invited to revise their manuscripts must submit a revised version along with a detailed response to reviewers’ comments. Revised manuscripts may be returned to the original reviewers for further evaluation.

9. Timeline of the Peer Review Process

AIJMS strives to maintain an efficient review timeline:

  • Initial editorial screening: 1–2 weeks
  • Peer review stage: 4–8 weeks
  • Revision and final decision: dependent on the extent of revisions

10. Confidentiality and Anonymity

All manuscripts and reviewer reports are treated as confidential. Reviewers must not disclose manuscript content or use unpublished material for personal research. Author and reviewer anonymity is strictly maintained.

11. Ethical Considerations in Peer Review

Editors and reviewers are required to declare conflicts of interest, conduct reviews objectively, and report suspected ethical misconduct in accordance with COPE and international medical publishing standards.

12. Appeals and Complaints

Authors may appeal editorial decisions by submitting a written justification. Complaints related to the peer review process are handled transparently and fairly by the editorial board.

13. Final Acceptance and Publication

Accepted manuscripts undergo copyediting and proofreading prior to publication. Authors must approve the final proofs before publication.