Review Guidelines

Peer Review Standards & Research Integrity

Reviewer Policy and Ethical Guidelines

The International Journal for Research in Internal Medicine (IJRIM) upholds ethical peer review standards consistent with the principles of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), recognized research integrity frameworks, and responsible scholarly publishing practices.

Peer review is an essential component of academic credibility and publication quality. Reviewers serve as independent subject experts who help assess the originality, scientific rigor, methodological soundness, and clinical relevance of submitted manuscripts.

Review Model
Double-Blind
Confidential evaluation
External Review
At Least 2 Reviewers
Independent subject experts
Editorial Authority
Editor-in-Chief
Final editorial decision

01. Peer Review Model

IJRIM follows a double-blind peer review process to promote fairness, objectivity, and academic integrity.

Under this model:
  • Author identities are concealed from reviewers.
  • Reviewer identities are concealed from authors.
  • Each manuscript proceeding to external review is evaluated by at least two independent reviewers with relevant subject expertise.
  • Editorial decisions are based on reviewer recommendations, academic merit, and the journal's publication standards.

The review process is conducted fairly and without discrimination based on nationality, institutional affiliation, gender, personal beliefs, or other irrelevant personal characteristics.

02. Reviewer Responsibilities

By accepting a review assignment, reviewers are expected to fulfil the following responsibilities:

2.1 Academic Integrity and Objectivity
  • Evaluate manuscripts objectively and solely on their scholarly merit.
  • Assess originality, scientific contribution, and relevance to Internal Medicine.
  • Examine the appropriateness of the research design, methodology, data analysis, and interpretation of findings.
  • Identify strengths, limitations, and areas requiring improvement.
  • Provide constructive, evidence-based feedback.
  • Avoid personal criticism, discriminatory comments, and unsupported judgments.
2.2 Confidentiality

Submitted manuscripts and associated review materials must be treated as confidential documents. Reviewers must:

  • Not share, distribute, or discuss manuscripts with unauthorized individuals.
  • Not use unpublished information, data, or findings for personal research or professional advantage.
  • Not disclose manuscript details or review reports without authorization from the editorial office.
  • Handle manuscript files and review materials securely.
Confidentiality obligations continue beyond the completion of the review assignment.

03. Conflict of Interest Disclosure

Reviewers must disclose any actual or potential conflict of interest that could affect their impartiality.

Potential conflicts may include:
  • Recent or ongoing research collaboration with one or more authors.
  • Personal, professional, or institutional relationships that may influence the review.
  • Financial interests or relevant funding relationships.
  • Direct academic or commercial competition.
  • Any other circumstance that could reasonably compromise independent judgment.

Reviewers should inform the Editor-in-Chief or editorial office of any such conflict and decline the assignment when impartial evaluation cannot be assured.

04. Ethical Vigilance and Research Misconduct

Reviewers play an important role in safeguarding research integrity. They are expected to identify and confidentially report potential ethical or publication concerns, including:

Plagiarism or substantial unattributed similarity.
Data fabrication or falsification.
Inappropriate image manipulation or alteration of research results.
Duplicate publication or redundant submission.
Undisclosed or inappropriate use of artificial intelligence in research or manuscript preparation.
Citation manipulation or coercive citation practices.
Inadequate reporting of research methods or findings.
Ethical concerns involving human participants, patient information, informed consent, or institutional approval.
Confidential Reporting:

Any suspected misconduct or ethical concern should be communicated confidentially to the editorial office with relevant explanations. Reviewers should not independently investigate allegations or contact authors directly about suspected misconduct.

05. Manuscript Evaluation Standards

Reviewers are expected to assess manuscripts using criteria appropriate to their article type and subject matter.

5.1 Scientific and Clinical Contribution
  • Relevance to the field of Internal Medicine.
  • Clarity of the research question and objectives.
  • Originality and contribution to existing clinical knowledge.
  • Significance of the findings for medical research or clinical practice.
5.2 Methodological Rigor
  • Appropriateness of the study design.
  • Suitability of participant selection and sampling methods.
  • Adequacy of data collection procedures.
  • Appropriateness of statistical methods and data analysis.
  • Validity of results and interpretation.
  • Transparency and reproducibility of the research methodology, where applicable.
5.3 Clinical Relevance and Interpretation
  • Relevance of findings to the assessment, diagnosis, treatment, or management of medical conditions.
  • Appropriate interpretation of clinical findings.
  • Recognition of study limitations.
  • Relevance of conclusions to the results presented.
  • Potential contribution to evidence-based medical practice.
5.4 Research Ethics and Patient Protection
  • Appropriate ethical approval, where required.
  • Evidence of informed consent, where applicable.
  • Protection of patient privacy and confidentiality.
  • Appropriate handling of identifiable clinical information and images.
  • Compliance with relevant research ethics requirements.
5.5 Literature and Referencing Standards
  • Appropriate engagement with relevant scientific literature.
  • Accuracy and consistency of references.
  • Balanced representation of previous research.
  • Ethical and relevant citation practices.
  • Avoidance of unnecessary or coercive citation requests.
5.6 Clarity and Scholarly Presentation
  • Logical organization and structure.
  • Clear presentation of research methods and findings.
  • Appropriate use of medical and scientific terminology.
  • Consistency between the objectives, results, and conclusions.
  • Overall clarity and quality of academic communication.

06. Responsible Use of Artificial Intelligence

Reviewers must protect the confidentiality and integrity of the peer review process when using artificial intelligence tools.

  • Not upload or share confidential manuscripts, unpublished data, or identifying information with public AI platforms or unauthorized third-party tools.
  • Not use AI-generated assessments as a substitute for their own independent scholarly judgment.
  • Verify the accuracy of any permitted AI-assisted language support.
  • Maintain responsibility for the originality, accuracy, and confidentiality of their review reports.

Any use of AI tools must comply with the journal's applicable policies and must not compromise manuscript confidentiality.

07. Timeliness and Professional Conduct

Reviewers are expected to:

  • Accept review invitations only when they have the relevant expertise and sufficient time to complete the assessment.
  • Complete reviews within the requested timeframe or communicate promptly if additional time is needed.
  • Notify the editorial office if they are unable to complete an accepted review assignment.
  • Provide clear, constructive, respectful, and professionally written comments.
  • Maintain confidentiality and impartiality throughout the review process.

Repeated failure to fulfil review responsibilities or serious breaches of reviewer ethics may result in removal from the journal's reviewer database.

08. Reviewer Recommendations

Reviewers are requested to provide one of the following recommendations:

01
Accept without Revision
02
Minor Revision
03
Major Revision
04
Reject

Each recommendation should be supported by detailed, objective, and evidence-based comments. Reviewers should clearly explain the academic or methodological reasons behind their recommendations and identify any essential revisions required.

Final Editorial Authority

The final editorial decision rests with the Editor-in-Chief, taking into account the reviewers' reports and independent editorial judgment.

09. Accountability and Transparency

The editorial office maintains appropriate records of peer review activities to support accountability, confidentiality, and ethical oversight.

Any concerns regarding reviewer conduct, conflicts of interest, confidentiality breaches, or research integrity are assessed by the editorial team in accordance with the journal's applicable policies and recognized publication ethics principles.

Serious or repeated breaches of reviewer responsibilities may result in:
  • Removal from the journal's reviewer database.
  • Restriction from future review assignments.
  • Further action where justified by the nature and seriousness of the concern.

10. Commitment to Academic Excellence

The International Journal for Research in Internal Medicine (IJRIM) recognizes reviewers as essential contributors to scholarly quality and responsible academic publishing.

Through independent evaluation and constructive feedback, reviewers help the journal to:

Maintain high standards of scientific and clinical research.
Promote ethical and responsible scholarly communication.
Improve the quality, accuracy, and clarity of submitted manuscripts.
Support the development of evidence-based knowledge in Internal Medicine.
Protect the credibility and integrity of the published scientific record.

IJRIM appreciates the professional contribution of reviewers and remains committed to maintaining a fair, confidential, and ethically responsible peer review process.

Fair Review. Ethical Practice. Academic Excellence.

IJRIM values the independence, confidentiality, and professional judgment of every reviewer contributing to the quality of scholarly research.