Peer Review Policy

Peer Review Process
The Journal of Medico Informatics (JoMi) follows a single-blind peer review process, in which the identities of authors are visible to reviewers, while reviewer identities are not disclosed to authors. All manuscripts submitted to the journal are assessed initially by the Editor-in-Chief, who may consult Associate Editors or other members of the editorial team to determine whether the submission fits the journal’s scope, scientific standards, and author guidelines before it is sent for external peer review. Manuscripts considered suitable for review are assigned to an Associate Editor or handling editor and are ordinarily evaluated by at least two independent expert reviewers. The final decision on publication is made by the Editor-in-Chief on the basis of the reviewers’ reports, the recommendation of the Associate Editor, and, where relevant, the advice of the Editorial Council.

Editorial standards
Editors select reviewers on the basis of subject expertise, independence, and the absence of disqualifying competing interests, in line with good editorial practice recommended by international publication ethics guidance. Manuscripts may be rejected without external review if they are outside the journal’s scope, do not meet minimum scientific or ethical standards, are insufficiently prepared for review, or fail to comply with the journal’s submission requirements. All manuscripts are treated as confidential documents during editorial assessment and peer review. Reviewers are expected to provide objective, constructive, and timely evaluations focused on scientific quality, originality, methodological rigor, ethical compliance, clarity of presentation, and relevance to the field of medico informatics.

Reviewer Selection
Reviewers are selected on the basis of their expertise in the relevant subject areas. The Editor-in-Chief and Associate Editors identify potential reviewers from the journal's reviewer database, recent literature, and author-suggested or excluded nominees. The following principles apply:
► A minimum of two independent reviewers are assigned to each manuscript.
► Reviewers must declare any conflicts of interest prior to accepting an invitation to review.
► Individuals with direct personal, professional, or financial conflicts of interest with the submitted work will not be invited to review.
► Reviewer identities are kept confidential throughout and after the review process.

Conflict of interest
Editors and reviewers must disclose any financial, institutional, collaborative, academic, or personal relationships that could influence, or reasonably appear to influence, their judgment on a manuscript. Individuals with relevant conflicts of interest will not participate in the editorial handling or peer review of the affected submission, and alternative editors or reviewers will be appointed where necessary. If a submission is authored by an editor, editorial board member, or other person closely associated with the journal, that individual will be excluded from all editorial decisions and peer review management for that manuscript. The manuscript will instead be handled independently by another qualified editor to ensure fairness, transparency, and editorial independence.

Revision and decisions
Each manuscript is ordinarily permitted a maximum of five rounds of peer review (fully based on reviewer suggestions and Editor decision). Authors may submit one revised version after the first round of review, and in exceptional circumstances a further minor revision may be invited after the second review round if the editors determine that the remaining issues are limited and clearly addressable. When submitting a revised manuscript, authors must provide a separate point-by-point response letter explaining how each reviewer and editor comment has been addressed, or giving a clear reason where a suggestion has not been adopted. Revised manuscripts must be submitted through the journal’s online editorial system within the deadline of the revision decision; submissions received after this period will normally be treated as new submissions. Also, kindly note, authors asking for extension via email jomi@aayvu.com will be granted for extension. Editorial decisions may include rejection, major revision, minor revision, acceptance, or acceptance subject to editorial amendments. Acceptance is based on the manuscript’s scholarly merit, ethical soundness, originality, methodological quality, and relevance to the journal, and not on commercial considerations or personal interests.