Peer Review

Review Process at a Glance

(1) The editorial office checks the submission for completeness, scope, ethics approval, language and similarity. (2) The handling editor decides whether it is sent for peer review or returned or rejected at this stage. (3) The handling editor invites at least two external, independent reviewers. (4) Reviewers submit written reports and a recommendation. (5) The handling editor takes a decision and sends it to the author, with the reviewers' comments, by email. (6) Revised manuscripts are reconsidered, and re-reviewed where needed, until a final decision is reached.

Editorial Screening

Every submission is first checked by the editorial office and the handling editor for scope, completeness, ethics committee or IRB approval, signed letter of authorship, and text overlap (see the Similarity Index policy). Submissions that are outside the scope of the journal, are incomplete or do not meet ethical or similarity requirements may be returned or rejected without external review.

Type of Review and Number of Reviewers

JPSIM uses double-blind review: the identities of the authors are withheld from reviewers, and the identities of the reviewers are withheld from the authors. Each manuscript sent for review is assessed by at least two external reviewers who are independent of the authors and of the journal's editorial office.

Review Route by Article Type

• Research articles, case reports and review articles: editorial screening, then double-blind review by at least two independent external reviewers.
• Editorials and Reflections: review within the Editorial Board only; no external review.

Editorials and Reflections. Editorials and Reflections are not research articles and are not sent for external double-blind review. Reflections are short pieces that share a personal or professional perspective on the practice of internal medicine and do not report original data. Both are assessed within the Editorial Board, by the Editor-in-Chief or a board member they assign, for relevance, accuracy, originality and compliance with the journal's publication ethics policies, and may be accepted, returned for revision or declined. Because there is no external review stage, the received and accepted dates of an editorial or a Reflection can fall on the same day.

Reviewers

Who appoints reviewers. Reviewers are chosen and invited by the handling editor, for their subject expertise, from the journal's reviewer database. Authors cannot nominate or suggest reviewers; reviewer selection is made solely by the editor. Reviewers with a conflict of interest, such as the same institution as an author or a recent collaboration, are not invited.

Reviewer qualifications. Reviewers must hold a medical or health-science qualification (MBBS or equivalent with postgraduate training, or a doctoral degree) and have relevant experience in the subject area of the manuscript, preferably with their own published research. At least one reviewer is from the subject specialty of the manuscript, and one preferably has a research background. Reviewers may be national or international experts. Reviewers must declare any conflict of interest before accepting an invitation, must not be from the author's institution, and must decline if they cannot review impartially.

What reviewers assess. Reviewers assess validity, originality, methods, interpretation, ethics, reporting and relevance. They recommend to accept, accept with minor revision, major revision, or reject, and give written comments for the authors. Reviewers must keep manuscripts confidential, must not use unpublished data for personal benefit, and must not upload manuscripts or review reports to generative AI tools (see Ethical Compliance).

Who Makes the Final Decision

The handling editor makes the final decision to accept, revise or reject, under the oversight of the Editor-in-Chief. The decision is based on the reviewers' reports and the editor's own assessment of scientific quality, ethics and relevance to the journal, and is independent of the authors' nationality, affiliation or ability to pay. Where reviews conflict materially, the handling editor may seek an additional review, request clarification or adjudicate using reasoned academic judgment. Authors receive an editorial decision with relevant reviewer comments. Revision does not guarantee acceptance.

Review Timeframe

Editorial screening is normally completed within one to two weeks of submission. Invited reviewers are asked to accept or decline the invitation within 3 working days; an invitation not answered within that time is withdrawn and another reviewer is invited. Reviewers who accept are asked to submit their report within one week (7 days) of accepting the invitation. Authors are asked to return revisions within four weeks of the decision letter, and are informed of the editor's decision by email after each review stage. For recently published articles, the time from submission to final acceptance has had a median of about five and a half months, with most articles accepted between four and eight months after submission, depending on reviewer availability and the number of revision rounds.

Case Reports

Reviewers of case reports are asked to check three things: that written informed consent for publication was obtained from the patient (or from a parent, guardian or next of kin where the patient cannot consent), that the patient cannot be identified from the text, images or dates, and that the report follows the CARE reporting guideline. A case report that does not meet these points is returned to the authors before it can be accepted. For case reports published from Volume 6, Number 1 onward, the consent statement is shown on the article page.

Appeals and Complaints

Authors who disagree with a decision may send a written appeal to the Editor-in-Chief at editor@psimj.com within 30 days of the decision, giving specific reasons and responding to the reviewers' comments point by point. The appeal is considered by an editor who was not involved in the original decision, who may seek an additional independent review. The outcome of the appeal is final. Complaints about the editorial process may be sent to the same address and are handled in line with COPE guidance (see Ethical Compliance).

Submissions by Editors, Board Members and Office Bearers

A manuscript authored by an editor, Editorial Board or Advisory Board member, journal staff member or PSIM office bearer receives independent handling and the same peer review as any other submission. The person concerned takes no part in its review or decision (see Submissions by Editors, Board Members and PSIM Office Bearers).

Confidentiality and Records

Manuscripts and review reports are treated as confidential. Review reports and identities are retained securely according to the journal's record-retention practice.

Becoming a Reviewer

Qualified clinicians and researchers who meet the criteria above are welcome to join the reviewer pool. Register at psimj.com/register or write to editor@psimj.com with your name, qualifications, institution, ORCID iD (if available) and areas of expertise. Reviewers are not paid, and their service is acknowledged by the journal.

Special Issues

JPSIM does not currently publish guest-edited special issues. If it does so in future, the guest editors will be approved and overseen by the Editor-in-Chief, every article will go through the same independent double-blind peer review as regular articles, a guest editor will have no role in reviewing or deciding on their own submission, and no more than 25% of the articles in a special issue will be written by the guest editors.