Peer Review

IJCI uses double-blind external peer review for scholarly articles selected to proceed beyond editorial screening, including original research, clinical studies, systematic reviews and meta-analyses, case reports and series, technical reports, surgical/video articles, medical education research, perspectives/commentaries, editorials, and letters. Author identities are not shown to reviewers, and reviewer identities are not shown to authors. Authors should submit an anonymized main manuscript and enter identifying author information only in the submission system.

Under the current IJCI prospective standard, publication requires at least two completed independent reviewer reports in the editorial record. Reviewers are selected for relevant subject, methodological, statistical, or clinical expertise and are expected to assess the work independently.

Every submission is first assessed for journal scope, completeness, originality, ethics and reporting requirements, conflicts, and basic scientific suitability. Manuscripts may be returned for correction or declined without external review when they are outside scope, incomplete, ethically unsuitable, duplicative, or unlikely to meet the journal's standards.

Manuscripts proceeding to external review are evaluated by at least two independent reviewers with expertise relevant to the subject, methodology, and clinical context. Editors may request additional methodological, statistical, technical, or specialty review when needed. Completed review records are retained as part of the editorial audit trail.

Authors are not required to suggest reviewers. If reviewer suggestions or exclusions are provided, IJCI independently verifies relevant expertise, identity, institutional relationships, and conflicts where practicable. Editors are not obligated to use an author's suggested reviewer and may reject a suggestion when independence cannot be assured.

Supplementary files, videos, protocols, checklists, statistical material, and other content relevant to the scientific record may be provided to reviewers when necessary for a complete assessment.

IJCI normally gives reviewers 21 days to complete an invited review. Overall editorial timing varies by manuscript complexity, reviewer availability, editor availability, methodological or ethics consultation, and revision requirements. Authors can follow the current stage in the Author Portal.

Reviewers assess originality, scientific validity, methodology, analysis, ethical conduct, reporting quality, interpretation, clinical relevance, reproducibility, and clarity. Reviews should be constructive, specific, evidence-based, and free from personal criticism. A reviewer should not demand citations or changes for personal, institutional, or journal self-interest.

Submitted manuscripts and peer-review material are confidential. Reviewers may not share, distribute, cite, or use unpublished information for personal or professional advantage. Reviewers must not upload manuscripts, figures, tables, review drafts, or other confidential material to unauthorized generative AI systems or external tools that retain, train on, or transmit the content.

Generative AI must not be used to create a substantive peer-review assessment. Limited editing assistance is acceptable only when confidentiality is preserved and the reviewer remains fully responsible for the final report. Editors likewise may not delegate substantive editorial judgment or decisions to generative AI.

Reviewers and editors must disclose financial, professional, institutional, academic, competitive, collaborative, supervisory, or personal relationships that could reasonably affect impartiality. A reviewer should decline the invitation when a material conflict exists. An editor with a conflict is excluded from handling, reviewer selection, confidential deliberation, and the decision on that manuscript.

Reviewer recommendations are advisory. The handling editor evaluates the reviews, the manuscript, the authors' responses, and any integrity or methodological issues before making or recommending an editorial decision. When reviews materially conflict, the editor may obtain another independent review, seek specialist input, or adjudicate the disagreement based on the scientific record.

Authors receiving a revision decision should submit a revised manuscript and a point-by-point response explaining how each substantive comment was addressed or why a requested change was not made. Revised manuscripts may be returned to the original reviewers, sent to additional reviewers, or evaluated editorially, depending on the nature of the changes and prior reviews.

Final acceptance or rejection rests with the journal's authorized editors and is based on scientific quality, integrity, relevance, reporting, and the peer-review record. Sponsors, advertisers, donors, institutions, author fees, waivers, and commercial interests do not control reviewer selection or editorial decisions.

A manuscript submitted by an editor, Editorial Board member, guest editor, or the journal owner is handled by an uninvolved qualified editor who has no conflict with the authors or work. The submitting individual has no access to reviewer identities or confidential deliberations beyond the information normally provided to an author and does not participate in reviewer selection or the editorial decision.

Scholarly articles submitted to a special issue or collection are evaluated under the same independence, conflict-management, and external peer-review standards as comparable regular submissions. Guest editors must disclose conflicts and work under the oversight of IJCI editorial leadership.

A manuscript authored by a guest editor or by a person closely connected with the special issue is assigned to an uninvolved editor. Guest editors may not make decisions on their own manuscripts or on manuscripts where a material conflict exists. When IJCI publishes a formal special issue, papers authored by its guest editor or guest editors will not make up more than 25% of that issue, consistent with DOAJ's current special-issue criterion.

All scholarly article types selected for publication are required to have at least two completed independent reviewer reports in the editorial record before publication.

Editorial screening may decline, return, or redirect a submission before external review, but once a scholarly article proceeds toward publication it remains subject to the journal's two-independent-reviewer standard.

Authors may submit one reasoned appeal through the Editorial Office at editorial@ijcinnovation.org. An appeal should identify the manuscript and explain a specific scientific, procedural, or ethical basis for reconsideration. Appeals are handled under IJCI's Complaints & Appeals Policy.