Innovative Journal of Medical Imaging
Official Journal of AARAIS
Open Access Journal
Open Access Journal
The Innovative Journal of Medical Imaging (IJMI) follows a structured double-blind peer review process to ensure the quality, originality, ethical integrity, and scientific validity of submitted research articles. The identities of authors and reviewers remain confidential throughout the review process to promote fairness, objectivity, and academic integrity.
Under normal circumstances, the complete editorial and publication process takes approximately 6–8 weeks, although the actual timeline may vary depending on reviewer availability, manuscript complexity, revision requirements, and editorial decisions.
Manuscript Submission
↓
Initial Editorial Screening (2–3 Days)
↓
Reviewer Selection and Assignment (5–7 Days)
↓
Double-Blind Peer Review (14–21 Days)
↓
Editorial Evaluation and Decision (3–5 Days)
↓
Author Notification
↓
Revision and Re-evaluation (if applicable)
↓
Final Editorial Decision
↓
Production and Publication
The peer review process begins when authors submit their manuscript through the journal's designated submission system. Authors must provide all required documents, including the manuscript, title page, author declaration, copyright or publishing agreement, ethical approval documents where applicable, and supplementary materials. Upon receipt, the submission is acknowledged and entered into the editorial workflow.
The editorial office conducts an initial assessment to determine whether the manuscript is appropriate for the journal and suitable for external peer review. The screening includes an evaluation of the manuscript's scope, originality, scientific relevance, formatting, completeness of submission documents, ethical requirements, and basic methodological quality. Manuscripts that do not meet the journal's requirements may be returned to the authors for correction or declined without external peer review.
Manuscripts that pass the initial screening are assigned to an appropriate handling editor. The editor identifies qualified reviewers based on their subject expertise, academic qualifications, research experience, publication record, availability, and potential conflicts of interest. The journal generally seeks independent expert assessments from multiple reviewers to ensure a balanced and comprehensive evaluation of each manuscript.
Selected reviewers conduct an independent and detailed assessment of the manuscript. The review focuses on originality, scientific significance, study design, methodological rigor, statistical analysis, ethical compliance, clarity of presentation, interpretation of results, references, and the overall contribution to the field of medical imaging.
Reviewers provide constructive comments highlighting the strengths and limitations of the manuscript and recommend an appropriate editorial action. Throughout the process, the identities of both authors and reviewers remain confidential in accordance with the journal's double-blind peer review policy.
After receiving the required peer review reports, the handling editor evaluates the reviewers' comments and recommendations. The editor considers the scientific quality of the manuscript, the consistency of the review reports, the validity of the reviewers' concerns, and the manuscript's relevance to the journal.
If substantial differences exist between reviewer recommendations, the editor may seek an additional expert opinion before reaching a decision. The handling editor then formulates an editorial recommendation based on the available evidence.
Once the editorial decision has been finalized, the corresponding author is notified through the editorial office. The decision letter includes the outcome of the review and, where applicable, anonymized reviewer comments and instructions for revision.
Editorial decisions may include:
├── Accept
├── Minor Revision
├── Major Revision
├── Reject with Resubmission Option
└── Reject
When revisions are requested, authors must submit a revised manuscript together with a detailed response to the reviewers' comments. Authors should clearly indicate how each comment has been addressed and identify corresponding changes in the revised manuscript.
Minor revisions are generally expected to be completed within 5 days, while major revisions should normally be submitted within 10 days. Revised manuscripts may undergo further editorial assessment and, when necessary, may be returned to the original reviewers for re-evaluation. The journal generally aims to complete the review process efficiently while maintaining appropriate scientific standards.
Following the evaluation of the revised manuscript, the editorial team makes the final decision regarding publication. The decision is based on the scientific merit of the manuscript, the adequacy of the revisions, reviewer recommendations, ethical compliance, methodological quality, and alignment with the journal's aims and scope.
The final editorial decision is formally communicated to the corresponding author by the editorial office.
Accepted manuscripts proceed to the production stage. This stage may include copyediting, language editing, typesetting, reference and formatting checks, proof preparation, and final quality control. Authors are provided with page proofs for review and correction before publication.
After the final version is approved, the article is published online with the appropriate publication information and is archived in accordance with the journal's digital preservation and indexing policies.
Under normal circumstances, the average time from manuscript submission to the first editorial decision is approximately 4–6 weeks. Following final acceptance, the article generally proceeds to online publication within approximately 1–2 weeks, subject to completion of production and author proof approval.
The overall timeline may vary depending on reviewer availability, manuscript complexity, revision requirements, additional expert consultation, author response time, and other editorial or production considerations.