Reviewer 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 that scientific rigor, ethical integrity, and clinical relevance remain the key criteria for our aspiration to become a leading Q1 journal.

Core Review Principles

Primary Evaluation Dimensions

Review each manuscript against these three pillars:

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 Do not discuss, cite, or use ideas from unpublished submissions.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.

Detailed Review Criteria by Article Type

Original Research Articles

Minimum Standards Checklist:

Abstract: Structured (Background, Methods, Results, Conclusions); 170–250 words.
Introduction: Clear rationale, identified knowledge gap, and an explicit statement of the 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)
Clinical Impact Statement: (Required subsection).
References: Current (≥50% within the last 5 years), relevant, and properly formatted.

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

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)

Health Technology Assessments

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

Medicine-driven Informatics Specific Evaluation

Essential Questions for All Submissions

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

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

For CLINICAL papers (implementation, outcomes):

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

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

Review Format & Scoring

Structured Review Form

Complete ALL sections in the online review system:

A. 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)

B. Detailed Comments:

Major Concerns: (Numbered, essential for publication)
Minor Concerns: (Numbered, suggestions for improvement)
Confidential Comments to Editor: (Ethical concerns, suspected misconduct, etc.)

C. 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)

Writing Effective Comments

Do's:

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.

Dont's:

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.

Special Considerations

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

Data & Code Availability

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

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

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

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