Peer Review Process

The Journal of Innovations in Internal Medicine (JIIM) is committed to a rigorous and fair peer review process to ensure the highest standards of scholarly integrity and quality. The peer review process is designed to provide authors with constructive feedback and to assist the editorial team in making informed decisions on manuscript acceptance.

1. Submission and Initial Screening

  • Manuscript Submission: Authors submit their manuscripts through the JIIM online submission system.
  • Initial Screening: The editorial office conducts an initial review to assess whether the submission aligns with the journal's scope and formatting guidelines. Manuscripts that do not meet basic requirements may be returned to authors for revisions or rejected without external review.
  • Plagiarism Check: All submissions undergo a plagiarism check using detection software to ensure originality.

2. Assignment to an Editor

  • Editorial Review: If the manuscript passes the initial screening, it is assigned to an appropriate editor based on their area of expertise.
  • Preliminary Assessment: The assigned editor conducts a preliminary evaluation to determine if the manuscript warrants peer review.

3. Selection of Reviewers

  • Reviewer Selection: The editor selects two or more qualified reviewers who have relevant expertise in the subject matter. Reviewers must have no conflicts of interest with the authors or the content of the manuscript.
  • Double-Blind Review: JIIM uses a double-blind review process, where both the reviewers and authors remain anonymous to each other to promote impartiality and objectivity.

4. Review Process

  • Review Timeline: Reviewers are typically given 2-4 weeks to complete their review. Extensions may be granted upon request.
  • Reviewer Guidelines: Reviewers are provided with guidelines to ensure a thorough evaluation of the manuscript’s:
    • Originality and significance
    • Methodological soundness
    • Clarity and coherence of presentation
    • Adherence to ethical standards

5. Reviewer Feedback

  • Constructive Comments: Reviewers are encouraged to provide detailed, constructive feedback to help authors improve their work, whether the recommendation is for acceptance, minor revisions, major revisions, or rejection.
  • Confidentiality: All submitted manuscripts and review feedback are confidential and must not be shared outside the review process.

6. Editorial Decision

  • Editor’s Review: Once the reviews are submitted, the handling editor evaluates the feedback and makes a decision on the manuscript.
  • Decision Categories:
    • Accept: The manuscript is suitable for publication without further changes.
    • Minor Revisions: The manuscript requires slight modifications. Authors are given a set period to submit the revised version.
    • Major Revisions: Substantial changes are needed, and the revised manuscript will typically undergo a second round of review.
    • Reject: The manuscript does not meet the journal’s standards or scope.
  • Final Decision: The Editor-in-Chief or a Section editor may make the final decision based on the recommendations and reviews provided.

7. Revision Process

  • Author Revisions: Authors are given a specified timeframe to revise their manuscript based on reviewer and editor feedback.
  • Re-Review: Revised manuscripts may be sent back to the original reviewers for further assessment or reviewed by the editor alone, depending on the extent of the revisions.

8. Post-Acceptance Review

  • Final Review: Accepted manuscripts undergo a final review for formatting and adherence to the journal’s publication standards.
  • Proof Review: Authors will receive a proof version of their article to review and approve before final publication.

9. Appeals Process

  • Author Appeals: Authors may appeal editorial decisions by submitting a formal request with a detailed justification. Appeals will be reviewed by an independent editor or editorial committee to ensure a fair reassessment.

10. Ethical Guidelines

  • COPE Standards: JIIM adheres to the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) guidelines to maintain integrity and transparency in the peer review process.
  • Review Ethics: Reviewers must disclose any potential conflicts of interest and must not use the content of the manuscript for their own research or benefit.

11. Reviewer Recognition

  • Acknowledgment: The journal recognizes the invaluable contributions of its reviewers by acknowledging them in annual reports and providing certificates upon request.