Innovative Journal of Medical Imaging

Overview

Peer review is a formal, independent evaluation process where experts in a specific field assess scholarly manuscripts before publication. This system serves as a critical quality control mechanism, ensuring that published research meets high standards of scientific validity, originality, and ethical integrity. At IJMI, peer review not only validates methodological soundness and analytical accuracy but also enhances manuscript clarity and impact through constructive expert feedback. Reviewers play an indispensable role in maintaining our journal's academic credibility and advancing medical imaging knowledge globally.

Our Double-Blind Peer Review System

IJMI operates under a double-blind peer review framework, designed to maximise objectivity and minimise bias. In this system, both authors and reviewers remain anonymous to each other throughout the evaluation process. This structure ensures that assessments are based solely on scholarly merit, unaffected by author reputation, institutional affiliation, or geographic location. The typical review period spans 2–3 weeks, though complex manuscripts may require additional time. This approach aligns with international publishing standards and fosters an environment of impartial scholarly evaluation.

Peer Review Workflow Overview

The peer review process follows a structured pathway from submission to editorial decision:

1. Initial Editorial Screening (2–3 days): The editorial team evaluates manuscripts for scope alignment, basic quality standards, and formatting compliance. Approximately 30% of submissions may be returned or declined at this stage.
2. Reviewer Assignment (5–7 days): Suitable reviewers are identified based on expertise, availability, and conflict-free status. The system typically invites 3–4 reviewers per manuscript to ensure at least two complete evaluations.
3. Peer Evaluation Phase (14–21 days): Reviewers conduct detailed assessments using our standardised evaluation criteria, submitting comprehensive reports with specific recommendations.
4. Decision Formulation (3–5 days): The handling editor synthesises reviewer feedback, evaluates conflicting assessments, and determines the appropriate editorial outcome.
5. Author Notification: Authors receive the decision along with anonymised reviewer comments and clear instructions for revisions when applicable.

The complete cycle from submission to initial decision typically requires 4–6 weeks, though exceptionally strong or problematic manuscripts may follow accelerated or extended timelines, respectively.

Reviewer Responsibilities and Ethical Guidelines

Pre-Review Considerations

Before agreeing to undertake a review assignment, it is essential for potential reviewers to conduct a preliminary self-assessment to ensure both their suitability and availability. This begins with confirming that the manuscript's subject matter falls squarely within their area of professional expertise, allowing them to provide a competent and authoritative evaluation. Crucially, reviewers must thoroughly examine and disclose any potential conflicts of interest, such as recent collaborative projects with the authors, direct competition in the same research niche, or institutional relationships that could be perceived as compromising impartiality. Furthermore, reviewers should realistically assess their schedule to guarantee they can dedicate the necessary time; a thorough review typically demands 4 to 6 hours of concentrated effort, and return their completed assessment within the journal's specified deadline, which is generally 14 days. This conscientious pre-acceptance step is fundamental to maintaining the integrity and timeliness of the peer review process.

Review Execution Protocol

Upon accepting a review assignment, it is imperative for reviewers to proceed through a structured and diligent process. The first step involves conducting an initial overview, reading the entire manuscript to grasp its overall structure, methodological approach, and key conclusions, which provides essential context for a thorough evaluation. Following this, reviewers should perform a detailed analysis, examining each section of the manuscript systematically against the journal’s standardised criteria, ensuring a comprehensive assessment of its scientific rigour, data presentation, and logical coherence. Throughout this process, maintaining strict confidentiality is non-negotiable; reviewers must protect all manuscript details from disclosure and refrain from discussing its content with any unauthorised parties. When formulating feedback, the goal is to be genuinely constructive—offering specific, actionable suggestions that guide authors toward meaningful improvements in their work. While the primary focus should always remain on the substance and scientific quality of the research, reviewers should also note any significant issues with clarity or presentation that hinder comprehension, ensuring the final manuscript communicates its findings effectively and accessibly.

Ethical Obligations

Adherence to stringent ethical obligations is fundamental to the integrity of the peer review process. Reviewers are entrusted with safeguarding academic standards and must act with vigilance and responsibility. Central to this role is the duty to report any suspicion of scholarly misconduct, such as plagiarism, data fabrication, or other ethical violations, directly and confidentially to the journal editor. Furthermore, reviewers must verify that appropriate documentation, such as institutional ethics board approvals and informed consent statements, is present and valid, particularly for studies involving human or animal participants. Throughout their assessment, maintaining complete objectivity is paramount; critiques must be focused on the work itself, avoiding any form of personal criticism directed at the authors. Reviewers are also obligated to preserve the double-blind nature of the review by strictly guarding their anonymity and not revealing their identity to the authors. Lastly, if a reviewer becomes aware of any previous familiarity with the research or authors that was not disclosed during the initial assignment acceptance, they must immediately declare this to the editor to ensure continued impartiality and transparency.

Comprehensive Manuscript Evaluation Framework

Scientific Quality Assessment

Reviewers play a critical role in assessing the scientific quality of a manuscript, which forms the core of its scholarly value. This evaluation should be comprehensive, examining several key dimensions. First, the originality and significance of the work must be judged: does the research present novel concepts, techniques, or findings that meaningfully advance the field of medical imaging, or does it merely reaffirm established knowledge? Following this, the methodological rigour requires scrutiny—reviewers must determine if the study design is appropriate for the research question, if the execution is sound, and if the methodology is described with sufficient clarity and detail. The analytical soundness must also be verified, ensuring that any statistical methods are correctly chosen, properly executed, and their results interpreted accurately without error or bias. Another vital consideration is whether the conclusions are evidence-based, meaning they are directly and logically supported by the data presented, avoiding speculation or overgeneralization beyond what the findings can sustain. Finally, the manuscript's reproducibility potential should be assessed: are the methods, materials, and analytical steps documented so thoroughly that another qualified researcher in the field could reasonably replicate the study and verify its results? A meticulous review of these elements ensures the published work is robust, reliable, and a genuine contribution to scientific discourse.

Structural and Presentation Evaluation

Reviewers should examine:

Technical and Ethical Compliance

Reviewers bear the responsibility of verifying the technical integrity and compliance of the manuscript, ensuring it meets the journal's high standards for publication. This involves a detailed check of several key components. First, visual elements, such as figures, graphs, and tables, must be evaluated for clarity, necessity, and proper labelling, confirming they enhance understanding without redundancy. Second, statistical reporting must be scrutinised to ensure the use of appropriate tests, correct presentation of p-values and confidence intervals, and, where relevant, the inclusion of effect sizes to convey practical significance. Third, adherence to ethical standards must be confirmed by checking for complete ethical documentation, including Institutional Review Board (IRB) approval numbers, patient consent statements for studies involving human participants, and clinical trial registration details where applicable. Fourth, reviewers should assess terminology consistency throughout the manuscript, ensuring the use of standardised terms and that all abbreviations are clearly defined upon first use. Finally, any supplementary materials should be reviewed for their relevance to the main text, logical organisation, and proper referencing within the manuscript. This thorough verification supports the manuscript's credibility, clarity, and compliance with scholarly and ethical norms.

Standardised Rating System

IJMI employs a five-tier rating scale to ensure consistent evaluation:

Review Report Composition Guidelines

Required Report Components

To ensure a comprehensive and constructive review, the reviewer's report must contain several key components. First, it should include a Summary Statement, providing a concise overview of the study’s aims, methodology, and principal findings. Second, it must detail Major Concerns, which are substantive issues that affect the manuscript’s validity, methodology, or overall interpretation. Third, the report should list Minor Comments, addressing specific corrections needed for clarity, formatting, or presentation without altering the core science. Fourth, Confidential Remarks must be included for the editor's eyes only, to disclose any ethical concerns or undeclared conflicts of interest. Finally, a clear Decision Recommendation such as Accept, Revise, or Reject, should be provided to guide the editor’s final judgment.

Decision Recommendation Framework

Reviewers should select from these standardised recommendations:

• Accept: Manuscript meets all criteria for publication
• Minor Revisions: Requires small corrections but no substantive changes
• Major Revisions: Needs significant improvements, warranting re-evaluation
• Reject with Resubmission: Fundamental issues, but salvageable with extensive revision
• Reject: Unacceptable due to flaws or scope misalignment 

For reviewer assistance or procedural questions, please contact: editor@spjinternational.co

Last Update on: 11/12/2025