Peer Review Policy

Review Model

Digital Health and Medical Intelligence will use single-anonymised review with clinical, technical, and ethics screening before external review. Each research article should normally receive at least two independent expert reviews before an accept decision. Editors may invite additional methodological, statistical, clinical, technical, or ethics review when the submission requires it.

Editorial Flow

1. Technical check for completeness, scope, authorship information, required statements, file quality, and obvious publication-ethics concerns. 2. Editorial assessment by the editor-in-chief or a handling editor with subject knowledge in digital health and medical intelligence. 3. External peer review by reviewers with relevant expertise and no known conflict of interest. 4. Author revision with a point-by-point response to reviewer and editor comments. 5. Final editorial decision based on evidence, reviewer advice, journal standards, and publication-ethics obligations.

Reviewer Expectations

Reviewers should evaluate validation design, clinical workflow fit, usability evidence, subgroup performance, privacy safeguards, and claims about clinical benefit. Reviewers should write evidence-based, respectful reports and should decline invitations when they have conflicts of interest, inadequate expertise, or insufficient time.

Decision Categories

The journal may issue decisions of reject, major revision, minor revision, accept with editorial changes, or accept. A revision invitation is not a promise of acceptance. Editors may reject a manuscript after revision if core methodological, ethical, or scope issues remain unresolved.

Confidentiality and Conflicts

Manuscripts, reviewer reports, correspondence, data, code, and supplementary files are confidential during review. Reviewers must not use unpublished information for personal advantage and must disclose recent collaboration, institutional relationships, financial interests, rivalry, or other conflicts.

Timing

During the launch period, the target first decision time is 5-10 weeks after technical check. This target is operational, not guaranteed, and should be revised once the journal has real workflow data.

Appeals Within Review

Authors may appeal if they identify a factual error, procedural problem, conflict of interest, or overlooked evidence. Appeals are handled separately from ordinary revision requests and do not guarantee re-review.