Journal of Digital Health Informatics and Intelligence (JDHII) is committed to publishing high-quality, scientifically rigorous, and ethically sound research. The cornerstone of this commitment is a robust, fair, and transparent peer-review process.
Review Model
JDHII employs double-blind peer review for all original research articles, systematic reviews, scoping reviews, and most other article types that present new data or analyses.
- The identities of both authors and reviewers are concealed from each other throughout the review process.
- This model is used to minimize bias related to author affiliation, reputation, gender, geography, or institutional prestige and to focus evaluation purely on the scientific content.
Exceptions to Double-Blind Review
- Editorials, invited commentaries, letters to the editor (in response to published articles), and book/software reviews are typically reviewed by the handling editor only or undergo single-blind or open review at the editor’s discretion.
- Manuscripts submitted by members of the editorial board or individuals with a close relationship to the editorial team are handled with additional safeguards (e.g., assigned to an independent guest editor) to preserve impartiality.
Peer Review Process – Step by Step
- Submission and Initial Screening
Upon receipt, every manuscript undergoes a preliminary check by the Editor-in-Chief or an Associate Editor (usually within 10–15 working days) for:
- Alignment with journal scope
- Basic scientific quality and novelty
- Adherence to submission guidelines and reporting standards
- Obvious ethical concerns or plagiarism flags
Note: Manuscripts that do not pass this stage may be desk-rejected with brief explanatory feedback.
- Assignment to Handling Editor
Suitable manuscripts are assigned to a handling editor (often an Associate Editor or Guest Editor) who has relevant domain expertise.
- Reviewer Selection
The managing editor invites a minimum of two independent reviewers (commonly 2–4), selected for:
- Expertise in the specific topic
- No recent collaboration or conflict of interest with the authors
- Ability to provide timely, constructive, and objective feedback
Note: Reviewers are asked to declare any potential competing interests before accepting an invitation.
- Review Criteria
Reviewers are asked to assess manuscripts on the following key dimensions:
- Originality and scientific novelty
- Soundness of methodology and statistical analysis
- Appropriateness and rigor of data interpretation
- Validity of conclusions and their support by the results
- Relevance and importance to digital health informatics and intelligence
- Clarity of presentation, structure, and language
- Ethical compliance and appropriate reporting
- Adequacy of references and acknowledgment of prior work
- Review Timeline
Reviewers are requested to return their reports within 3–4 weeks. Authors can normally expect a first decision within 4–5 weeks of submission (longer during peak periods or when additional reviewers are required).
- Decision Categories
- Accept
- Minor Revision
- Major Revision
- Reject & Resubmit (new submission encouraged with substantial changes)
- Reject
- Revision and Re-review
Authors are provided with all reviewer comments and are expected to submit a detailed point-by-point response along with the revised manuscript (tracked changes or highlighted revisions).
Revised manuscripts may undergo one or more additional rounds of review until the managing editor is satisfied that all substantive concerns have been adequately addressed.
- Final Decision
The Editor-in-Chief makes the ultimate accept/reject decision based on the reviewers’ reports, author responses, and editorial assessment.
Reviewer Guidelines & Recognition
- Reviewers are expected to maintain strict confidentiality and to disclose any conflicts of interest promptly.
- Constructive, specific, and respectful feedback is strongly encouraged.
- Providing an official certificate of review service upon request.
- Offering expedited review for the reviewer’s own future submissions, where appropriate.
- Currently no financial compensation is associated with review of an JDHII article by a reviewer.
Transparency & Appeals
- Authors receive anonymized reviewer reports and editorial correspondence.
- Editorial decisions aim to be evidence-based and free from personal bias.
- Authors who believe there has been a serious procedural error may submit a formal appeal to the Editor-in-Chief, including clear justification and evidence.
- Appeals are considered carefully but are rarely successful unless significant flaws in the review process are demonstrated.
Note: The peer review policy is reviewed periodically to maintain alignment with evolving best practices in scholarly publishing.