For individual submissions, the Editorial Staff conducts an initial evaluation of each manuscript. If the topic and treatment appear potentially appropriate for the journal, the manuscript is assigned by the Editor-in-Chief, the Editor-in-Chief's Deputy Editor, or a member of the Editorial Board. This member becomes the Lead Reviewer for the article, who then organizes and oversees the review process and the selection of internal and external reviewers. Once the review process is complete, the Editor-in-Chief recommends acceptance, revision, or rejection of the manuscript. The final decision rests with the Editor-in-Chief.

Authors may suggest one potential reviewer during the submission process. The journal does not guarantee the use of such suggestions. All reviewers must be independent of the submitted article and will be required to declare any conflicts of interest.

For research articles related to a Collection, guest editors are responsible for setting up and conducting the review process. Upon completion of the review process, they will issue an editorial opinion. Again, the final decision rests with the Editor-in-Chief.

If granted the opportunity to revise a manuscript based on the revisions, authors are encouraged to resubmit their revisions within eight weeks of receiving notification of the editorial decision. They are also encouraged to submit a letter (attached to the notification email to the editorial staff) detailing their response to individual issues raised by the reviewers.

We practice double-blind peer review, which means the author's name and affiliation are not disclosed to the reviewer. The referee's name and affiliation are also not disclosed to the author. We always strive to engage at least three independent reviews. In the event of significant discrepancies, the Editor-in-Chief or guest editor will consult with the Editor-in-Chief to make a final editorial decision.

Review requests are sent to qualified peers for assessment of the relevance of their theoretical, methodological, thematic, and/or geographical expertise. The IJIIM has a large reviewer database used to identify suitable reviewers. Additionally, we will also contact peers who are not (yet) registered. We aim to include at least one member of the editorial board in the review panel.

Desktop rejections will be justified, but unfortunately, cannot be accompanied by a detailed reasoning. A rejection based on the outcome of a review process will be supported by the actual reviews and a justification from the editor.

As the International Journal of Informational Integrative Medicine is a journal run by independent researchers, it is normal for members of the editorial board to submit research articles.

Members of the editorial board/editorial committee are authorized to submit their own articles to the journal. In cases where an author is associated with the journal, they will be removed from all editorial duties for that article, and another member of the team will be assigned responsibility for overseeing peer review. Any conflicts of interest must also be declared in the submission and in any resulting publication.