Reviewer Guidelines
Comprehensive standards and expectations for JMID peer reviewers in health informatics and clinical decision making.
Guardians of Scientific Quality
Peer reviewers are the backbone of scientific publishing. Your expert evaluation ensures that JMID maintains the highest standards of scientific rigor, clinical relevance, and technical soundness. These guidelines outline your responsibilities, evaluation criteria, and best practices for constructive review.
As a JMID reviewer, your fundamental duties include:
- Evaluate manuscripts objectively for scientific validity, methodological rigor, and clinical significance
- Assess the originality of the research and its contribution to medical informatics knowledge
- Complete reviews within the requested timeline (typically 14-21 days)
- Provide constructive, specific, and actionable feedback to help authors improve their work
- Identify any ethical concerns, including potential plagiarism, data integrity issues, or undisclosed conflicts
- Maintain strict confidentiality of all manuscript contents and your review
- Declare any conflicts of interest before accepting a review assignment
- Adhere to COPE guidelines for ethical peer review conduct
Before agreeing to review a manuscript, consider the following:
Expertise Match
Confirm that the manuscript falls within your area of expertise (e.g., clinical decision support, EHR systems, healthcare AI, NLP). If the methodology is outside your competence, inform the editor.
Conflict of Interest
Decline if you have a personal relationship with the authors, recent collaboration, competitive interest, or financial conflicts with vendors/companies mentioned in the research.
Time Commitment
Ensure you can complete the review within the requested timeline. A typical thorough informatics review requires 2-4 hours. If you cannot meet the deadline, decline promptly.
When assessing a medical informatics manuscript, systematically evaluate the following:
| Criterion | Key Questions |
|---|---|
| Originality | Does this address a significant gap in informatics knowledge? Is the approach novel? |
| Scientific Validity | Is the study design appropriate? Are evaluation methods rigorous? Are metrics well-chosen? |
| Technical Soundness | Are algorithms/methods properly described? Can the work be reproduced? Is code/data available? |
| Clinical Relevance | Does this address a real clinical workflow need? Is it clinically validated? What is the impact? |
| Presentation | Is the manuscript clearly written? Are system diagrams clear? Is the length appropriate? |
AI/ML Studies
Evaluate: dataset representativeness, train/test splits, fairness across demographic groups, explainability/interpretability, comparison to baselines, and potential for algorithmic bias.
Clinical Decision Support
Assess: clinical workflow integration, user interface design, alert fatigue considerations, validation in clinical settings, and impact on patient outcomes or clinician behavior.
EHR/Data Studies
Consider: data quality and completeness, interoperability standards (HL7, FHIR), generalizability across EHR systems, and compliance with data privacy regulations.
Implementation Studies
Evaluate: deployment context, adoption metrics, barriers and facilitators, sustainability considerations, and lessons for replication in other settings.
Your review should help authors improve their manuscript regardless of your recommendation:
- Structure your review: Organize comments into major issues (requiring substantial revision) and minor issues
- Be specific: Reference specific sections, figures, or code. Vague criticism is unhelpful
- Explain your reasoning: When identifying a flaw, explain why it matters and suggest how to address it
- Maintain professionalism: Critique the work, not the authors. Avoid sarcasm or dismissive language
- Acknowledge strengths: Begin by noting the manuscript's positive aspects before discussing weaknesses
Confidential Comments to Editor
The confidential section is for your recommendation and any concerns not appropriate for the authors (e.g., suspected misconduct). Do not use this section to criticize authors in language you would not use directly.
Reviewers must maintain the highest ethical standards:
- Do not use ideas, data, code, or methods from manuscripts under review for your own research or benefit
- Do not share manuscripts with colleagues or trainees without editor permission
- Report suspected plagiarism, duplicate publication, or data fabrication to the editor immediately
- Do not contact authors directly about the manuscript
- Decline further reviews if you become aware of a conflict during the review process
JMID values your time and strives to make the review process efficient. When you accept a review invitation, please plan to complete your evaluation within 2 weeks. If circumstances arise that prevent timely completion, notify the editor immediately so alternative arrangements can be made. Reviewers who consistently meet deadlines are given priority for future review invitations.
JMID recognizes the essential contribution of peer reviewers through annual acknowledgment in the journal, certificates of contribution documenting your service, and expedited processing for your own submissions to the journal. Outstanding reviewers may be invited to join the Editorial Board. Your service helps maintain the scientific integrity of clinical informatics research and advances knowledge that improves healthcare through information technology and decision science.
Questions About Reviewing?
Our editorial team is available to support you with any questions about the review process or specific manuscripts.
Contact Editorial Office
