Reviewer Guidelines

Journal Mission & Reviewing Guidelines

NOVA MEDICA INFORMATICA (NOVEM) operates on the pioneering principle of Medicine-Driven Informatics. As a reviewer, your primary responsibility is to evaluate whether submissions genuinely advance this paradigm: does the research place clinical needs, evidence-based practice, and tangible healthcare impact at the center of digital innovation?

Our peer review process is double-anonymized and adheres to the highest global standards. Your evaluation ensures scientific rigor, ethical integrity, and clinical relevance are key criteria for our aspirations as a next Q1 and leading journal.

1. CORE REVIEW PRINCIPLES

1.1 Primary Evaluation Dimensions

Review each manuscript against these three pillars:

1.2 Confidentiality & Ethics

  • Strict Confidentiality: Manuscripts are privileged communications. Do not discuss, cite, or use ideas from unpublished submissions.
  • Conflict of Interest: Decline review if you have competitive, collaborative, or financial conflicts with authors or their institutions.
  • Anonymity: Maintain reviewer anonymity throughout and after the process. Do not contact authors directly.
  • Timeliness: Complete reviews within 14 days. Request extensions early if needed.

 

2. DETAILED REVIEW CRITERIA BY ARTICLE TYPE

2.1 Original Research Articles

Minimum Standards Checklist:

  • Abstract: Structured (Background, Methods, Results, Conclusions), 170 ≤ 250 words
  • Introduction: Clear rationale, knowledge gap, and explicit statement of clinical problem
  • Methods:
    • IRB/ethics approval referenced (with ID#)
    • CONSORT (trials), STROBE (observational), or TRIPOD-AI (prediction models) checklist compliance
    • Detailed statistical analysis plan
    • Reproducibility: code/data availability statement
  • Results:
    • Clear presentation with appropriate tables/figures
    • Statistical significance with effect sizes and confidence intervals
    • Negative/null results reported transparently
  • Discussion:
    • Interpretation in clinical context
    • Comparison with existing literature
    • Limitations addressed honestly
    • Clinical Impact Statement (required subsection)
  • References: Current (≥50% within 5 years), relevant, properly formatted

2.2 Systematic Reviews/Meta-Analyses

  • PRISMA checklist adherence
  • Protocol registered in PROSPERO or equivalent
  • Comprehensive search strategy across multiple databases
  • Quality assessment of included studies (e.g., Cochrane ROB, Newcastle-Ottawa)
  • Clinical heterogeneity and applicability addressed

2.3 Clinical Validation Studies

  • Clear description of clinical setting and patient population
  • Comparison against appropriate gold standard
  • Sensitivity, specificity, PPV/NPV with CIs
  • Clinical utility analysis (e.g., decision curve analysis)

2.4 Health Technology Assessments

  • Comprehensive cost-effectiveness/benefit analysis
  • Implementation feasibility assessment
  • Stakeholder perspective inclusion

3. MEDICINE-DRIVEN INFORMATICS SPECIFIC EVALUATION

3.1 Essential Questions for All Submissions

For TECHNICAL papers (AI/ML, algorithms, systems):

  1. "Is the clinical problem being solved clearly defined and significant?"
  2. "Were clinicians/end-users involved in design or validation?"
  3. "Is performance evaluated on relevant clinical endpoints (not just technical metrics)?"
  4. "Are deployment challenges (integration, workflow, regulation) discussed?"

For CLINICAL papers (implementation, outcomes):

  1. "Is the technological component described with sufficient detail for replication?"
  2. "Are technical limitations (scalability, interoperability, security) addressed?"
  3. "Is there consideration of digital literacy, equity, or access issues?"

3.2 Red Flags (Potential for Major Revision/Rejection)

  • Technology-first approach without clear clinical rationale
  • Algorithm development without clinical validation
  • Retrospective studies claiming clinical impact without prospective validation plan
  • Lack of interdisciplinary perspective in methodology or discussion
  • Insufficient attention to ethical, regulatory, or implementation barriers

 

4. REVIEW FORMAT & SCORING

4.1 Structured Review Form

Complete ALL sections in the online review system:

  1. Overall Recommendation(Select one):
  • Accept as is (rare, for exceptional papers)
  • Minor revisions (accept after addressing specific points)
  • Major revisions (requires significant changes and re-review)
  • Reject (with clear justification)
  1. Detailed Comments:
  1. Major Concerns: (Numbered, essential for publication)
  2. Minor Concerns: (Numbered, suggestions for improvement)
  3. Confidential Comments to Editor: (Ethical concerns, suspected misconduct, etc.)
  1. Scoring (1-5 scale):
  • Significance/Originality: (5 = field-advancing, 1 = incremental)
  • Methodological Rigor: (5 = exemplary, 1 = flawed)
  • Clinical Relevance: (5 = direct patient impact, 1 = minimal relevance)
  • Presentation/Clarity: (5 = excellent, 1 = poor)

4.2 Writing Effective Comments

DO:

  • Be specific: "In Table 2, please clarify how the confidence intervals were calculated."
  • Be constructive: "The discussion would benefit from comparing findings to Smith et al. (2023)."
  • Reference literature: "This method has been validated in similar populations; see Johnson et al. (2022)."
  • Separate scientific from editorial concerns.

AVOID:

  • Subjective language: "I don't like this approach."
  • Vague criticism: "The methods are weak."
  • Personal comments about authors.
  • Directing authors to cite your own work without clear scientific justification.


5. SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS

5.1 AI-Generated Content

  • Evaluate transparency: Is AI use in manuscript preparation disclosed?
  • Assess for "AI hallucinations" or fabricated references
  • Ensure human oversight and accountability in methods/results

5.2 Data & Code Availability

  • Require accessibility statements for datasets and code
  • Evaluate repositories for appropriateness and persistence
  • Check compliance with FAIR principles where applicable

5.3 Equity, Diversity & Inclusion (EDI)

  • Consider if research addresses or exacerbates health inequities
  • Evaluate participant diversity in study populations
  • Assess accessibility of proposed solutions across different resource settings

5.4 Implementation Science Framework

For implementation studies, evaluate use of established frameworks:

  • RE-AIM (Reach, Effectiveness, Adoption, Implementation, Maintenance)
  • CFIR (Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research)
  • Normalization Process Theory

 

6. ESCALATION PROCEDURES

Immediately notify the Editor-in-Chief via confidential comments if you suspect:

  • Scientific misconduct: Data fabrication, plagiarism, image manipulation
  • Ethical violations: Lack of IRB approval, consent issues
  • Dual submission/publication
  • Author/reviewer conflict of interest
  • Major methodological flaws that cannot be addressed through revision

 

7. REVIEWER RECOGNITION & SUPPORT

7.1 Acknowledgment

  • Listed as "Recognized Reviewer" annually (with permission)
  • Certificate of excellence for top reviewers
  • Waived APCs for your future submissions (after 5+ quality reviews)

7.2 Resources

  • Access to editorial decision summaries after publication
  • Annual reviewer workshop invitation
  • Methodological guidelines library

 

8. DECISION INTERPRETATION GUIDE