All research articles, case reports, and review articles undergo double blind peer review process. Initially editorial screening followed by double blind external review by at least two independent reviewers with relevant expertise. Editorials are written by editorial board members experts in their field or received on request by subject experts and undergo preliminary review within the editorial board.
Reviewers are selected for expertise, independence and absence of material conflict. They assess validity, originality, methods, interpretation, ethics, reporting and relevance.
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 reports and identities are retained securely according to the journal's record-retention practice.
Review timeline. Manuscripts that pass editorial screening are sent for double-blind review. For articles published recently, the time from submission to final acceptance has typically been four to eight months, depending on reviewer availability and the number of revision rounds. Authors are informed of the editor's decision by email after each review stage.
How reviewers are selected. Reviewers are chosen by the handling editor for their subject expertise, from the journal's reviewer database. Reviewers with a conflict of interest, such as the same institution as an author or a recent collaboration, are not invited.
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.
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. The consent statement is published on the article page.