Review Policy

The Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Medical and Veterinary Sciences (JAIMVS) follows a rigorous and transparent peer-review process designed to ensure the quality, originality, scientific validity, and ethical integrity of published research.

1. Peer-Review Assignment

• After completing the initial editorial screening, eligible manuscripts are normally evaluated by at least two independent experts with relevant expertise.
• JAIMVS uses a double-blind peer-review process, in which the identities of authors and reviewers are kept confidential to the extent possible.
• Reviewers are expected to provide objective, constructive, and scientifically justified comments.
• Peer-review reports are treated as confidential and will not be disclosed publicly without the reviewer's permission, except where required by applicable policies or law.

2. Review Process

Reviewers are asked to evaluate manuscripts based on criteria including:

• Scientific quality and methodological rigor.
• Originality and significance.
• Validity of results and conclusions.
• Appropriate statistical analysis, where applicable.
• Ethical compliance.
• Quality and accuracy of references.
• Appropriate reporting of AI, machine-learning, or computational methods where relevant.
• Relevance to the scope of JAIMVS.

Reviewers are normally given 21 days to complete their evaluations. If a reviewer does not respond within the required timeframe, the invitation may be withdrawn and an alternative reviewer invited.

3. Reviewer Responsibilities

Reviewers must:

• Maintain the confidentiality of manuscripts.
• Declare any potential conflict of interest.
• Avoid using unpublished information for personal or professional advantage.
• Provide fair, respectful, and constructive comments.
• Inform the editor of any suspected plagiarism, duplicate publication, ethical concerns, or other forms of research misconduct.

Reviewers should not upload confidential manuscript content to publicly accessible generative AI systems or other external services without appropriate authorization.

4. Communication with the Corresponding Author

Once the required reviews have been received and assessed by the editor, the corresponding author will be notified of the editorial decision.

The editor may communicate reviewer comments to the corresponding author, together with any additional editorial comments or instructions.

5. Revision of Manuscripts

When revision is requested, authors should submit a revised manuscript together with a clear response addressing the comments raised by the reviewers and editor.

Authors are normally expected to submit the revised manuscript within three weeks, unless an extension has been granted by the editor.

Revised manuscripts may be returned to the original reviewers for further evaluation when necessary.

6. Editorial Decisions

Possible editorial decisions include:

• Accept
• Minor Revision
• Major Revision
• Reject

The final decision regarding publication rests with the Editor-in-Chief or an authorized member of the Editorial Board. Editorial decisions are based on the overall scientific quality of the manuscript, reviewer assessments, ethical considerations, and the journal's scope and standards.

A positive reviewer recommendation does not guarantee acceptance.

7. Review Timeline

JAIMVS aims to provide authors with an efficient and timely peer-review process while maintaining rigorous scientific standards.

The time required for a final decision may vary depending on reviewer availability, the complexity of the manuscript, the number of revisions required, and other editorial considerations. A typical review process may take approximately 6–8 weeks, although this timeframe is not guaranteed.

8. Editorial Independence

Peer-review and publication decisions are made independently of commercial interests, advertising, institutional affiliations, or other non-scientific considerations. JAIMVS is committed to maintaining a fair, transparent, and academically rigorous review process.