Peer Review Policy
The success of JMIRS is a direct reflection of our dedicated team of international peer reviewers who critically evaluate manuscript submissions. These reviews assist the editorial board in making publication decisions, and guide authors in strengthening their professional writing. Reviewers provide objective, insightful, and rigorous critiques of submitted manuscripts, enhancing the clinical relevance and scientific quality of articles published in JMIRS and helping medical radiation technologists advance quality and innovation in patient care.
All manuscripts are peer reviewed following the procedure outlined below. Please note that special issues and/or conference proceedings may have different peer review procedures involving, for example, Guest Editors, conference organizers or scientific committees. This will be communicated to contributing authors in these cases. See the Conflict of Interest policy for other exclusions, including conflicts involving the Editor-in-Chief, wherein a manuscript submitted by the EIC (including submission as a co-author or serving as an advisor or advisee to the author) is referred to the Deputy Editor, who will select an appropriate associate editor who in turn will select referees to provide an unbiased assessment of the paper.
Initial manuscript evaluation
The Editor-in-Chief evaluates all manuscripts upon submission. Those rejected before being sent to review have serious scientific flaws, or are outside the aims and scope of the journal. Those that meet the criteria are assigned to Associate Editor, who will select two peer reviewers with expertise in the subject matter.
Type of peer review
The JMIRS uses "double blind" reviewing, where the referees and author remain anonymous throughout the process.
Selection of referees
The "Personal Classifications" system is used to match reviewers with manuscripts that are most likely to be of interest to them. (Authors specify relevant classifications when they submit a manuscript through Editorial Manager.)
The JMIRS attempts to prevent conflicts of interest by not inviting reviewers from the same institutions as authors. However, previous relationships or places of employment may not be apparent. In our invitation to potential reviewers, we ask that they decline to review if they know, or guess the identity of the author.
Referees are asked to evaluate whether the manuscript:
- Is original
- Is methodologically sound
- Follows appropriate ethical guidelines
- Has results which are clearly presented and support the conclusions
- Correctly references previous relevant work
Referees are not expected to correct or copyedit manuscripts. Language correction is not part of the peer review process.
How long does the review process take?
Once appropriate reviewers have been identified they are sent an invitation, and asked to respond within one week (at which point it will be sent to an alternate). Reviewers who accept the invitation are asked to complete the review within 21 days. Reviewers who agree to evaluate a manuscript but do not return comments by the due date may be replaced with alternates to keep the review process moving along. Should the referees' reports contradict one another or a report is unnecessarily delayed, a further expert opinion will be sought.
There are several possible decisions: to accept or reject the manuscript outright, to request minor or major revisions, and to accept or reject after revision(s). Referees and/or Associate Editors may request more than one revision of a manuscript. This decision will be sent to the author along with any recommendations made by the referees, and may include verbatim comments by the referees.
If an author wishes to appeal an outcome of peer review, they should contact the Editor-in-Chief ([email protected]) and detail his/her concern. Appeals will only be successful if reviews were inadequate or unjust. Should this be the case, the paper will be sent to alternate reviewers agree to re-review the paper.
A tutorial in using Editorial Manager for reviewers is available under "Reviewer Information" on the JMIRS Editorial Manager homepage. Reviewers are encouraged to contact the Managing Editor with questions or comments about the manuscript itself. Questions about submitting comments through Editorial Manager may also be directed to Editorial Manager support at [email protected].
Becoming a reviewer for JMIRS
If you are not currently a referee for the JMIRS, but would like to be added to the list of referees, please contact the editorial office ([email protected]).
The JMIRS is proud to recognize the efforts of our reviewers in the following ways:
- A list of peer reviewers is published and updated annually on the JMIRS website
- We have created an annual peer reviewer award in 5 categories (overall best reviewer, and best reviewer in each discipline - radiation therapy, radiological technology, nuclear medicine and magnetic resonance technology) to recognize our top reviewers. Reviewers are offered a letter awarding 2 hours of educational credit, and a letter is also available to be mailed to your employer recognizing your contributions.
- Reviewers are sent thank-you letters from the Editor-in-Chief at the end of each year, and a letter is also available to be mailed to your employer recognizing your contributions.