Innovative Journal of Medical Imaging

Peer Review Workflow

The Innovative Journal of Medical Imaging (IJMI) follows a structured double-blind peer review process to ensure the publication of high-quality, ethical, and scientifically sound research. The identities of authors and reviewers remain confidential throughout the review process, promoting fairness, objectivity, and academic integrity.

Step 1: Manuscript Submission

The peer review process begins when authors submit their manuscript through the journal's submission system. Authors are required to provide all necessary documents, including the manuscript file, cover page, title page, author declaration and copyright form, ethical approval documents where applicable, and any supplementary materials. Once the submission is received, the manuscript is acknowledged and entered into the editorial workflow.

Step 2: Initial Editorial Screening (2–3 Days)

Following submission, the editorial office conducts a preliminary assessment to determine whether the manuscript fits within the journal's scope and meets the basic requirements for peer review. During this stage, editors evaluate the scientific relevance, originality, formatting compliance, completeness of submission documents, and ethical considerations. Manuscripts that do not satisfy these requirements may be returned to the authors for correction or declined without external review. Approximately 20–30% of submissions may be screened out at this stage.

Step 3: Reviewer Selection and Assignment (5–7 Days)

Manuscripts that successfully pass the initial screening are assigned to a handling editor with expertise in the relevant subject area. The handling editor identifies and invites qualified reviewers based on their academic expertise, publication record, availability, and absence of conflicts of interest. To ensure a balanced and comprehensive evaluation, the journal typically invites three to four reviewers for each manuscript, with the aim of obtaining at least two complete independent review reports.

Step 4: Double-Blind Peer Review (14–21 Days)

During the peer review stage, the selected reviewers conduct a detailed scientific assessment of the manuscript. Reviewers evaluate the originality and significance of the research, the appropriateness of the study design, methodological rigor, statistical validity, ethical compliance, clarity of presentation, and overall contribution to the field of medical imaging. Reviewers provide constructive comments, identify strengths and weaknesses, and submit recommendations regarding the manuscript's suitability for publication. Throughout this process, both reviewer and author identities remain confidential.

Step 5: Editorial Evaluation and Decision Formulation (3–5 Days)

Once the required review reports have been received, the handling editor carefully examines the reviewers’ comments and recommendations. The editor assesses the overall scientific quality of the manuscript, considers any conflicting reviewer opinions, and determines the most appropriate editorial action. In cases where reviewer recommendations differ substantially, additional expert opinions may be requested. Based on the available evidence, the editor formulates a recommendation for the final editorial decision.

Step 6: Author Notification

After the editorial decision has been finalized, authors are notified of the outcome. The decision letter includes anonymized reviewer comments and detailed guidance regarding any revisions that may be required. Editorial decisions generally fall into one of five categories: acceptance, minor revision, major revision, reject with resubmission option, or rejection. The feedback provided is intended to help authors improve the scientific quality and presentation of their work.

Step 7: Revision and Re-evaluation

If revisions are requested, authors are required to submit a revised manuscript along with a detailed response letter addressing each reviewer comment. Minor revisions are typically expected within five days, while major revisions should generally be completed within ten days. Revised manuscripts undergo further editorial assessment and may be returned to the original reviewers for additional evaluation when necessary. To maintain efficiency and timely publication, the journal generally permits a maximum of two rounds of revision.

Step 8: Final Editorial Decision

After the revised manuscript has been evaluated and all concerns have been satisfactorily addressed, the editorial team reaches a final decision regarding publication. This decision is based on the scientific merit of the study, the adequacy of revisions, reviewer recommendations, ethical compliance, and alignment with the journal’s aims and scope. The final decision is communicated to the authors by the editorial office.

Step 9: Production and Publication

Accepted manuscripts proceed to the production stage, which includes copyediting, language editing, typesetting, proof preparation, and final quality checks. Authors receive page proofs for review and approval before publication. Once the final version is approved, the article is assigned publication details, made available online, and archived according to the journal’s indexing and preservation policies.

Overall Timeline: Under normal circumstances, the average time from manuscript submission to the first editorial decision is approximately 4–6 weeks. The time from final acceptance to online publication is generally 1–2 weeks. While exceptionally strong manuscripts may move through the process more quickly, manuscripts requiring extensive review, additional expert consultation, or substantial revisions may require additional processing time.