Peer Review Process

Peer Review Process

Avicenna Journal of Clinical and Translational Medicine

The Avicenna Journal of Clinical and Translational Medicine (AJCTM), published by Avicenna Medical Press (AMP), is committed to a fair, independent, rigorous, and transparent peer-review process.

Research manuscripts are evaluated for scientific originality, methodological quality, ethical integrity, clinical or translational relevance, and clarity of presentation.

1. Peer Review Model

AJCTM operates a double-anonymized peer-review model. Authors' identities are withheld from reviewers, and reviewers' identities are not disclosed to authors.

Authors must submit a separate title page and an anonymized main manuscript without identifying information, where feasible.

Although reasonable steps are taken to preserve anonymity, complete anonymity cannot be guaranteed, particularly when research findings, preprints, registrations, or datasets are publicly accessible.

2. Initial Editorial Assessment

Following submission, manuscripts undergo preliminary editorial screening to assess:

• Relevance to the journal's aims and scope
• Scientific originality and potential contribution
• Compliance with author instructions
• Research ethics approval and informed consent
• Reporting quality and methodological suitability
• Completeness of mandatory declarations
• Potential research or publication integrity concerns

The journal aims to complete initial screening within 5-7 working days. This is an indicative target rather than a guaranteed decision period.

Manuscripts that do not meet the journal's minimum editorial requirements may be returned for correction or declined without external review.

3. Selection of Reviewers

Manuscripts considered suitable for external assessment are normally assigned to at least two independent reviewers with expertise relevant to the subject and research methodology.

Reviewers are selected on the basis of subject expertise, professional independence, availability, and absence of material competing interests.

Authors may suggest suitable reviewers where requested. The Editorial Office retains full discretion over reviewer selection and is not obliged to invite suggested individuals.

4. Review Timelines

Invited reviewers are normally requested to respond within five days and to return their assessment within 14-21 days after accepting the invitation.

Actual timelines may vary according to manuscript complexity, specialist availability, reviewer responses, and the need for further evaluation.

The journal does not guarantee acceptance, a particular editorial outcome, or publication within a fixed period.

5. Criteria for Evaluation

Reviewers are asked to consider:

• Originality and significance of the research question
• Clarity and appropriateness of study objectives
• Study design, methodology, and statistical analysis
• Validity and reproducibility of the findings
• Ethical compliance and research transparency
• Interpretation of results and study limitations
• Clinical or translational relevance
• Accuracy and completeness of references
• Clarity, organization, and scientific presentation

6. Editorial Decisions

Following assessment of reviewer reports, the handling editor may recommend one of the following outcomes:

• Acceptance
• Minor revision
• Major revision
• Rejection

Where necessary, additional reviewers may be invited or specialist statistical or methodological assessment may be requested.

Reviewer recommendations are advisory. The final editorial decision rests with the Editor-in-Chief or an appropriately delegated, independent handling editor.

7. Revisions and Reassessment

Authors invited to revise a manuscript should provide a revised version and a point-by-point response explaining how each editorial and reviewer comment has been addressed.

Any disagreement with a reviewer recommendation should be explained respectfully and supported by scientific reasoning.

Revised manuscripts may be reassessed by the handling editor, original reviewers, or additional experts as appropriate.

An invitation to revise does not guarantee eventual acceptance.

8. Editorial Independence and Conflicts of Interest

Editors and reviewers must disclose relevant financial, professional, institutional, personal, or academic competing interests.

Individuals with significant competing interests must withdraw from the affected manuscript's evaluation or decision-making process.

Editorial decisions must not be influenced by commercial considerations, publication charges, institutional status, or personal relationships.

9. Submissions from Editorial Team Members

Members of the Editorial Team may submit scholarly work to AJCTM, provided their manuscripts undergo the same scientific and ethical standards applied to other submissions.

A manuscript authored by an editor, editorial board member, or an individual with a close relationship to the handling editor will be assigned to an independent editor without a relevant conflict of interest.

The submitting editorial member will have no access to confidential reviewer identities, unpublished reviewer reports outside the normal author process, or editorial decision-making for their own manuscript.

10. Confidentiality and Responsible AI Use

Manuscripts, reviewer reports, and editorial correspondence are confidential throughout the evaluation process.

Editors and reviewers must not use unpublished information for personal advantage or disclose it to unauthorized individuals.

Confidential manuscript material must not be uploaded to external AI systems where privacy and confidentiality cannot be adequately protected without appropriate authorization.

11. Appeals and Complaints

Authors may request reconsideration of an editorial decision by submitting a reasoned appeal explaining the basis of their concern.

Appeals are assessed according to the journal's Complaints and Appeals Policy and, where appropriate, by an editor who was not responsible for the original decision.

Disagreement with a scientific judgment alone does not automatically warrant reversal.

12. Ethical Oversight

Concerns regarding plagiarism, duplicate publication, data integrity, research ethics, peer-review manipulation, or undisclosed conflicts of interest are addressed under the journal's publication ethics procedures.

AJCTM's peer-review practices are informed by internationally recognized guidance, including the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).

Committee on Publication Ethics

13. Editorial Correspondence

Editorial Office, AJCTM
Email: editor@ajctm.org