Peer Review Policy

TheInternational Journal of Informational Integrative Medicine (IJIIM) employs a double-blind peer review process (double-blind peer review) to ensure maximum transparency, impartiality, and scientific quality of the published content. This policy is aligned with international best practices recommended by COPE (Committee on Publication Ethics) and ICMJE (International Committee of Medical Journal Editors).

1. Anonymization Process

• Authors are required to upload their manuscripts without any identifying information.
• The following must be removed from the text and the file’s metadata: names, affiliations, acknowledgments, and any bibliographic references that could directly identify the author (e.g., “as demonstrated in our previous work”).
• Author anonymity is preserved throughout the entire review process.

2. Selection of Reviewers

Review requests are sent to qualified colleagues based on the relevance of their expertise:

Criterion Description

Theoretical expertiseConsistency with the article’s conceptual and theoretical framework.

Methodological expertiseAppropriateness with respect to the research design and the analysis techniques used.

Subject-matter expertise Specific experience in the disciplinary field of the article.

Geographical expertise Knowledge of the cultural or territorial context, where relevant.

The IJIIM maintains an extensive database of reviewers, which is constantly updated and used to identify suitable reviewers. In addition, the editorial board actively contacts colleagues who are not (yet) registered in the database, thereby expanding the pool of available reviewers.

Standard practice dictates that reviewers be external to the editorial board, ensuring maximum independence and objectivity in their judgment. In exceptional cases, justified by highly specialized subject matter, the opinion of a member of the editorial board may be sought, but this is not standard practice.

3. Assignment and Review

1. The Editor-in-Chief or the Deputy Editor-in-Chief assigns the manuscript to a Subject Editor who is an expert in the specific topic of the article.
2. The Subject Editor selects at least two (2) independent, external reviewers, chosen based on their specific expertise and the absence of conflicts of interest with the authors or the content of the manuscript.
3. Each reviewer evaluates the manuscript anonymously and independently, providing a detailed report that includes:
• Specific comments and suggestions for improvement.
• A clear recommendation: Accept, Revise, or Reject.

4. Role of the Section Editor

• The Section Editor coordinates the entire process:
• Selects the reviewers.
• Collects and evaluates the reviewers’ reports.
• Integrates their comments.
• The Section Editor does not act as the sole reviewer, but rather supervises and synthesizes the opinions of external reviewers, ensuring the objectivity of the evaluation.
• Based on the reports collected, the Section Editor formulates a final recommendation to the Editor-in-Chief.

5. Handling of Articles by Editorial Board Members

Since IJIIM is a journal managed by independent researchers, editorial board members are permitted to submit their own articles to the journal. To ensure maximum transparency and impartiality:

When an author is a member of the editorial board, they are completely recused from all editorial duties related to that article.

Responsibility for overseeing the peer review process is entrusted to a different Area Editor who has no professional or personal relationship with the author.

Any conflicts of interest must be disclosed by the authors at the time of submission and, where applicable, indicated in the resulting publication.

6. Final Decision

Based on the reviewers’ reports and the Area Editor’s recommendation, the Editor-in-Chief makes one of the following decisions:

Decision Description

Acceptance The article is accepted for publication, possibly with minor revisions.

Major Revisions The article is returned to the authors for substantial revisions and will undergo a new evaluation.

Rejection The article is not accepted for publication.

The decision is communicated to the authors through the editorial office, accompanied by the reviewers’ reports and the Area Editor’s instructions.

7. Review Times

The IJIIM is committed to ensuring prompt review times while maintaining the quality of the process. The average response time from authors is approximately 30 days from submission.

8. Conflicts of Interest

• Reviewers and editors are required to promptly disclose any potential conflicts of interest.
• In the event of conflicting opinions among reviewers, the Section Editor may seek the opinion of an additional expert reviewer to resolve the matter.

9. Compliance with International Standards

The IJIIM peer review process is aligned with the international best practices recommended by:

• COPE (Committee on Publication Ethics)
• ICMJE (International Committee of Medical Journal Editors)

This policy has been drafted in accordance with the requirements for indexing in DOAJ (Directory of Open Access Journals) and PubMed Central (PMC).

Last updated: [03/09/2026]