Guide for Reviewers
Becoming a reviewer Code of conduct Conflicts of interest Ethical responsibilities Review process How to write a reviewer report Help using our peer review system
All submissions will be considered by an editor and “if not rejected right away” by peer-reviewers, whose identities will remain anonymous to the authors.
Becoming a reviewer
If you want to become a reviewer of JIM, please contact the editorial office (email@example.com) to ask to be considered for the position, and provide an up-to-date curriculum vitae or resume. Reviewers are selected for their expertise and experience.
Code of conduct
JIM is a member of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), and follows the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) Recommendations. Our editorial office will consult the guidelines of Core Practices of COPE and ICMJE Recommendations.
Conflicts of interest
In order to ensure fairness in the referee process, we try to avoid peer reviewers who have recent or ongoing collaborations with the authors, have commented on drafts of the manuscript, are in direct competition, have a history of dispute with the authors, or have a financial interest in the outcome. Because it is not possible for the editors to know all possible biases, we ask peer reviewers to pay attention to anything that might affect their report, including commercial interests, and decline to review in cases where they feel unable to be objective.
For further guidance on avoiding potential conflicts of interest during the peer review process, see the COPE ethical guidelines for peer reviewers.
In addition to adhering to the “Code of conduct” and “Conflicts of interest” guidelines, reviewers have the following responsibilities:
1. Treat the manuscript as confidential: The manuscript (or its existence) should not be shown to, disclosed to, or discussed with others.
2. To judge the manuscript objectively and in a timely fashion: Reviewers should not make personal criticism in their reviews.
3. To inform the editor if there is a conflict of interest: Specifically, reviewers should not review manuscripts authored or co-authored by a person with whom the reviewer has a close personal or professional relationship, if this relationship could be reasonably thought to bias the review.
4. To inform the editor of any similarity between the submitted manuscript and another either published or under consideration by another journal.
5. To alert the editor if a manuscript contains or appears to contain plagiarised material, falsified or manipulated data.
6. Not to retain or copy the submitted manuscript in any form; to comply with data protection regulations, as appropriate.
7. Not to use information obtained during the peer review process for their own or any other person’s or organization’s advantage, or to disadvantage or discredit others.
To save authors' and reviewers' time, only those manuscripts judged most likely to meet our editorial criteria will be sent out for peer-review. Submitted manuscripts are usually reviewed by two or more experts. Based on their advice, the editorial board and Editor-in-Chief decide to:
Accept: The manuscript would be suitable for publication in its current form (after copy-editing and proofreading).
Minor revisions: The manuscript could be suitable for publication after the author(s) have responded to the reviewer comments and made changes where appropriate. These changes could include referencing another work or a rewrite of a few sections.
Major revision: The manuscript could be suitable for publication after the author(s) have responded to the reviewer comments and made changes where necessary. These changes could include redoing experiments or a substantial rewrite of several sections.
Reject: The manuscript is not suitable and it should not be considered further.
How to write a reviewer report
Please aim to submit your review promptly: The suggested deadline for receipt of the review is given in the invitation email. Please inform the editor as soon as possible if you are not able to submit your review by the deadline.
When writing a reviewer report, please consider:
1. Is the question posed original, important and well defined?
2. Are the data sound and well controlled?
3. Is the interpretation (discussion and conclusion) well balanced and supported by the data?
4. Are the methods appropriate and well described, and are sufficient details provided to allow others to evaluate or replicate the work?
5. What are the strengths and weaknesses of the methods?
6. Can the writing, organization, tables and figures be improved?
7. Are the included additional files appropriate?
Please inform the editor if:
1. The manuscript contains work which closely resembles other publications, or duplicates text and/or figures;
2. You have concerns about the level of scientific rigour;
3. The manuscript lacks sufficient novelty or is incremental (list any relevant publications in your report);
4. You suspect fragmentation of a substantial body of work into several short publications;
5. You consider that a manuscript contains personal criticism of others;
6. You have ethical concerns such as plagiarism or regarding approval for human or animal experimentation.
Help using our peer review system
We handle all our peer review through the online system ScholarOne Manuscripts. This system does require the use of pop-ups, therefore please ensure that they are enabled on your device when using the system. New users will need to set up an account on the system before starting. To do this please go to the online system ScholarOne Manuscripts. It takes only a few minutes to complete the form; once done you will be able to access your account immediately. A reviewer guide and FAQ section is available from ScholarOne Manuscripts to help you use and navigate the system.
Copyright © 2021, Journal of Integrative Medicine Editorial Office. E-edition published by Elsevier (Singapore) Pte Ltd. All rights reserved.
Lixing Lao, Virginia, USA
Frequency: 6 issues per year
Publisher: Science Press, China