Editorial Policies
Upholding scientific integrity through transparent editorial standards in medical informatics publishing.
Committed to Ethical Excellence
The Journal of Medical Informatics and Decision Making adheres to the highest standards of publishing ethics, ensuring fairness, transparency, and scientific rigor. Our policies align with COPE guidelines and reflect best practices in health informatics research publishing.
JMID employs rigorous single-blind peer review to ensure scientific quality while maintaining efficiency. Each manuscript undergoes evaluation by at least two independent informatics specialists with expertise relevant to the submission topic.
Initial Screening
Upon submission, the Editor-in-Chief performs an initial assessment to verify scope alignment, basic formatting compliance, and overall scientific quality. Manuscripts outside scope or with fundamental flaws may be desk-rejected within 5 business days.
Reviewer Selection
The handling editor selects reviewers based on expertise in clinical informatics, decision support, EHR systems, healthcare AI, or data analytics. Reviewers are screened for conflicts of interest before assignment.
Review Timeline
Reviewers are requested to submit evaluations within 14-21 days. Authors typically receive an initial decision within 2-4 weeks of submission. Expedited review may be available for time-sensitive digital health innovations.
Decision Categories
Possible decisions include: Accept, Minor Revision, Major Revision, or Reject. Authors receive detailed feedback from reviewers along with the editorial decision letter outlining required changes.
All research published in JMID must comply with established ethical standards:
- IRB/Ethics Approval: All studies involving patient data require documented approval from an institutional ethics committee or IRB
- Informed Consent: Consent must be documented for prospective studies; waiver justification required for retrospective data analysis
- HIPAA Compliance: US-based studies must demonstrate HIPAA-compliant data handling procedures
- GDPR Compliance: EU-based studies must comply with General Data Protection Regulation requirements
- De-identification: Methods for de-identifying patient data must be clearly described
AI and Algorithm Ethics
Studies developing clinical decision support tools or AI-driven diagnostics should address potential algorithmic bias, fairness across demographic groups, interpretability/explainability, and appropriate human oversight in deployment scenarios.
Transparency regarding potential conflicts is essential to maintaining research integrity. Authors must disclose:
- Financial relationships with healthcare IT companies, EHR vendors, or AI startups whose products are discussed
- Consulting fees, honoraria, or advisory roles related to the topic
- Patent holdings or equity in informatics companies
- Funding sources for the research, with grant numbers where applicable
- Employment or contractual relationships with interested parties
Reviewers and editors must also declare conflicts and recuse themselves from manuscripts where objectivity could be compromised.
JMID follows the ICMJE criteria for authorship. All listed authors must have:
- Made substantial contributions to conception, design, data acquisition, analysis, or interpretation
- Drafted or critically revised the manuscript for important intellectual content
- Approved the final version to be published
- Agreed to be accountable for all aspects of the work
Contributors who do not meet all criteria should be acknowledged. Ghost authorship and honorary authorship are prohibited.
JMID requires transparency in computational research:
- Authors must provide a Data Availability Statement describing access to underlying data
- Code availability: Custom algorithms and ML models should be deposited in public repositories (GitHub, Zenodo)
- Reproducibility: Sufficient documentation to allow replication of computational methods
- For proprietary systems, describe methodology in sufficient detail for scientific evaluation
Duplicate Submission
Concurrent submission to multiple journals is a violation of publication ethics. Authors must confirm that the manuscript is not under consideration elsewhere. If a manuscript is withdrawn from JMID after 3 days of submission, a 30% withdrawal fee applies.
| Issue | Action |
|---|---|
| Minor errors discovered post-publication | Erratum or Corrigendum published |
| Serious errors affecting conclusions | Correction notice with updated article version |
| Evidence of misconduct or fabrication | Retraction per COPE guidelines |
Authors who disagree with editorial decisions may submit a formal appeal to the Editor-in-Chief within 30 days, providing justification and any additional evidence.
JMID adheres to the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) guidelines for best practices in publication ethics. Editors and reviewers are expected to familiarize themselves with COPE's core practices and flowcharts for handling ethical issues. When ethical concerns arise, consult with the Editor-in-Chief and refer to COPE resources for guidance on appropriate responses.
JMID takes all complaints seriously and handles them according to COPE-recommended procedures. Complaints regarding editorial decisions, publication ethics, or journal processes should be directed to the Editor-in-Chief. All complaints are investigated thoroughly, and complainants receive a written response outlining findings and any actions taken.
Questions About Our Policies?
Our editorial team is available to address any questions regarding ethical compliance, authorship, or publication standards.
Contact Editorial Office
