Peer Review Process

Journal of AI in Clinical Innovation (JAICI)

Peer reviewers play a vital role in ensuring the scientific rigor, quality, and credibility of the Journal of AI in Clinical Innovation (JAICI). To uphold our commitment to excellence, JAICI sets clear expectations and guidelines for reviewers.

1. Confidentiality

  • All manuscripts and review materials are strictly confidential.

  • Reviewers must not share, discuss, or use any part of the manuscript outside the review process.

2. Conflicts of Interest

  • Reviewers must disclose any potential conflicts of interest (financial, institutional, or personal) before accepting a review.

  • If a conflict exists, reviewers should decline the assignment.

3. Objectivity & Integrity

  • Reviews must be unbiased, constructive, and evidence-based.

  • Personal criticism of the author(s) is not acceptable.

  • Reviewers should evaluate manuscripts solely on scientific merit, originality, and relevance.

4. Timeliness

  • Reviewers are expected to complete their review within 2 weeks of accepting the invitation.

  • If unable to meet the deadline, reviewers should notify the editorial office promptly.

5. Review Criteria

Reviewers are asked to evaluate manuscripts based on:

  • Originality & Innovation – Novelty and significance of the findings.

  • Scientific & Clinical Impact – Relevance to AI-driven healthcare and potential influence on practice.

  • Methodological Rigor – Soundness of study design, AI model reporting, datasets, and statistical analysis.

  • Clarity & Organization – Quality of writing, figures, tables, and data presentation.

  • Ethical Standards – Compliance with IRB approval, patient consent, and data protection regulations.

6. Responsibilities

  • Provide thorough, balanced, and constructive feedback to improve the manuscript.

  • Highlight strengths as well as weaknesses.

  • Identify issues related to plagiarism, data fabrication, or ethical misconduct, if suspected.

  • Submit clear recommendations: Accept, Minor Revision, Major Revision, or Reject.

7. Recognition

  • Outstanding reviewers are acknowledged annually through certificates, awards, or editorial board invitations.

  • Review activity may be recognized through platforms such as Publons, ORCID, or Crossref Reviewer Recognition.