Peer Review

We rely on peer review not just as a formality, but as the backbone of the journal. Every manuscript that comes in is read first by an editor who checks whether it fits the journal’s focus and has enough substance to move forward. If it passes that stage, it’s sent to reviewers who understand both the clinical and technical sides of the work.

We typically use a double-blind review, meaning authors and reviewers don’t know each other’s identities during the process. This helps keep things fair and reduces unnecessary influence.

Reviewers are asked to focus on clarity, scientific rigor, ethical standards, and whether the work contributes something genuinely useful to clinical AI practice. Their comments are meant to guide authors, not discourage them. Once reviews are submitted, the editor makes a decision to accept, revise, or reject based on the strength of the feedback and the overall contribution of the manuscript.

Our goal is a review process that is thorough, respectful, and genuinely helpful to everyone involved.