Editor Guidelines
Comprehensive standards and expectations for JMID Editorial Board members in health informatics publishing.
Shaping Digital Health Research Excellence
As a member of the JMID Editorial Board, you play a pivotal role in maintaining the scientific rigor, clinical relevance, and ethical integrity of the journal. These guidelines outline your responsibilities, decision-making framework, and communication standards.
Editors serve as the primary gatekeepers of scientific quality for JMID. Your fundamental duties include:
- Evaluate assigned manuscripts for scientific validity, methodological rigor, and clinical significance
- Assess alignment with JMID scope: clinical informatics, decision support, CDS, AI workflows, EHR/clinical data
- Select and invite qualified peer reviewers with appropriate technical and clinical expertise
- Ensure all potential conflicts of interest are identified and appropriately managed
- Synthesize reviewer feedback into constructive, actionable editorial decisions
- Maintain strict confidentiality of all manuscript contents and reviewer identities
- Uphold COPE guidelines and JMID editorial policies at all stages of evaluation
- Respond to author queries and appeals in a professional, timely manner
When a manuscript is assigned to you by the Editor-in-Chief, follow this workflow:
- Initial Assessment (48 hours): Review the submission for scope fit and basic quality. If clearly outside scope or fundamentally flawed, recommend desk rejection with justification.
- Conflict Check: Declare any personal, financial, or institutional conflicts with the authors or research topic. Recuse yourself if objectivity could be compromised.
- Reviewer Identification: Identify 3-5 potential reviewers with relevant expertise in EHR, clinical AI, NLP, imaging informatics, or clinical decision support.
- Reviewer Invitation: Send invitations via ManuscriptZone. If initial invitees decline, promptly identify alternatives to maintain timeline.
- Monitor Progress: Track reviewer response times. Send reminders for overdue reviews. Escalate persistent delays to the editorial office.
- Decision Synthesis: After receiving reviews, synthesize feedback and formulate your editorial recommendation with detailed justification.
Selecting appropriate reviewers is critical to maintaining publication quality. Consider the following:
Technical Alignment
Match reviewers to the manuscript's technical focus: machine learning methods require ML expertise, EHR studies need clinical informatics reviewers, NLP papers need computational linguistics experience.
Clinical Expertise
For studies with clinical validation components, include at least one reviewer with relevant clinical experience who can evaluate the clinical workflow integration and patient outcome implications.
Methodological Expertise
For manuscripts with complex evaluation designs, include a reviewer with experience in informatics evaluation methodology, biostatistics, or implementation science.
Career Stage Balance
Consider including both established experts and promising early-career researchers. This develops future reviewers while ensuring experienced oversight.
After receiving peer reviews, you must formulate a recommendation for the Editor-in-Chief. Available decision categories:
| Decision | Criteria | Author Action |
|---|---|---|
| Accept | Manuscript meets all standards; no or trivial revisions needed | Proceed to production |
| Minor Revision | Manuscript is sound but requires clarifications or minor improvements | Revise within 2 weeks; no re-review needed |
| Major Revision | Significant issues identified but potentially addressable with substantial revision | Revise within 6 weeks; will undergo re-review |
| Reject | Fundamental flaws in design, methodology, or scope alignment; or insufficient novelty | May resubmit as new submission if fundamentally restructured |
Weighing Conflicting Reviews
When reviewers disagree significantly, do not simply average their recommendations. Critically evaluate each reviewer's arguments, consider requesting an additional review if needed, and provide clear editorial justification for your final recommendation.
Professional, timely communication is essential to editorial excellence:
- Respond to new manuscript assignments within 48 hours
- Send reviewer reminders promptly when reviews become overdue
- Submit your editorial recommendation within 5 business days of receiving all reviews
- Ensure decision letters are constructive, specific, and respectful—even for rejected manuscripts
- Direct complex ethical concerns or appeals to the Editor-in-Chief for adjudication
Editors must be vigilant for potential ethical issues during evaluation:
- Verify that appropriate IRB/ethics approval is documented for studies involving patient data
- Flag any concerns about data integrity, potential plagiarism, or undisclosed conflicts
- Ensure AI/ML studies address algorithmic bias and fairness considerations
- Verify compliance with HIPAA/GDPR for studies using health data
- Refer to COPE flowcharts when ethical concerns arise during review
JMID values the essential contribution of our editorial board members. Editors are recognized through annual acknowledgment in the journal, listing on the editorial board page, and certificates of service. Outstanding editors may be invited to take on expanded roles within the journal. Your service helps maintain the scientific integrity of clinical informatics research and advances knowledge that improves healthcare delivery worldwide.
Editors have access to the editorial management system for manuscript tracking, reviewer database, and communication tools. The editorial office provides support for technical issues, policy questions, and complex decision scenarios. Regular updates on journal policies and COPE guidelines are provided to ensure consistent editorial practice.
Questions for the Editorial Office?
Our team is available to support you with any manuscript handling queries, technical issues, or policy clarifications.
Contact Editorial Office
