Review Policies

Editorial Review and Peer Review Policies

The editorial team of The Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Health Horizons (JAIHH) is dedicated to maintaining the highest standards of integrity and excellence throughout the editorial and peer review processes for submitted manuscripts. To ensure the highest quality of scholarship, we adhere to the following essential criteria:

1. Relevance and Alignment: Each manuscript must align with the aims and scope of JAIHH, addressing significant issues within the fields of artificial intelligence and healthcare. We seek contributions that expand the understanding of how AI technologies are transforming health practices, improving patient outcomes, and shaping future medical paradigms.

2. Innovation and Quality: JAIHH emphasizes originality and scholarly rigor. Manuscripts should present novel insights, methodologies, or applications that meaningfully contribute to existing discourse. We prioritize research that advances theoretical frameworks and showcases empirical strength while fostering innovative thinking within the realm of AI in health.

3. Adherence to Formatting Standards: To streamline the publication process, authors are required to comply with the specific formatting and layout guidelines of JAIHH. Meticulous attention to presentation enhances the manuscript's clarity and professionalism, significantly improving the reader's experience.

4. Linguistic Precision: The quality of writing is critical. Manuscripts must demonstrate a high standard of grammar, style, and language composition. Clarity, coherence, and effective communication of ideas are vital for the manuscript’s impact and engagement with its audience.

Review Process

The review policy of JAIHH comprises two integral stages: editorial review and rigorous peer review. Upon submission, the editorial team conducts an initial screening of the manuscript to ascertain that it adheres to the fundamental criteria outlined above. Only those manuscripts that successfully pass this preliminary assessment will progress to the subsequent phase.

Accepted manuscripts will undergo a “double-blind peer review” process, wherein both the identities of the authors and the reviewers are concealed from one another to ensure objectivity and impartiality in the assessment. This approach bolsters the integrity of the review process and fosters constructive feedback to enhance the quality of published works.

We are committed to upholding the highest standards in our editorial and peer review processes, ensuring that The Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Health Horizons remains a leading platform for impactful research in the intersection of artificial intelligence and healthcare. Impartiality We take great care to select peer reviewers of international repute, experts whose knowledge and experience are aligned with the specific themes and methodologies of the submitted work.

To achieve publication, each manuscript must receive approval from a minimum of three qualified experts in the relevant field. This safeguard ensures that only those works which demonstrate academic merit and significant contribution to the discipline are published.

It is important to note that the identities of the authors will remain confidential to the peer reviewers throughout the review process, only being revealed post-publication. This commitment to anonymity enhances the integrity of the review process and fosters an environment of unbiased evaluation.

Through these meticulously structured editorial and peer review policies, JIAHH aspires to cultivate an academic community dedicated to pioneering research and discourse that advances the field of digital culture and education.

Manuscript Handling and Peer Review Process for JIAHH

At the “Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Health Horizons (JIAHH) “, the editorial team is dedicated to ensuring a meticulous and transparent manuscript handling and peer review process. Upon submission, each manuscript is assigned to the “editor-in-chief” or a designated “section editor”, who will oversee its processing in strict accordance with JIAHH’s established policies and procedures. This systematic approach ensures that every submission receives the attention it merits.

1. Review Feedback and Revisions: Any suggestions or constructive comments provided by the reviewers will be communicated to the author(s) to facilitate meaningful revisions. The editor-in-chief or section editor will assess the revised submission, determining whether it can proceed to peer review as is, requires minor or major alterations, or, in some cases, merits outright rejection.

2. Initial Screening and Plagiarism Check: All submitted manuscripts will undergo a comprehensive initial evaluation, which includes a thorough “Plagiarism Check” conducted at the Editorial Office. The review process commences with a “Preliminary Review” by the editor, ideally completed within “7-8 days” of manuscript submission, ensuring a swift and efficient response.

3. Preparation for Peer Review: If the manuscript passes the initial evaluation, it will be forwarded to an “assistant editor (sub-editor)” for the necessary editing and formatting, ensuring adherence to JIAHH’s presentation standards.

4. Double-Blind Peer Review: The formatted manuscript will then undergo a double-blind peer review, where at least one reviewer will be a local expert and one will be from abroad—both recognized authorities in the relevant subject matter. In exceptional circumstances, the manuscript may be evaluated by two local experts in addition to a foreign reviewer, provided at least one local reviewer holds a PhD or postdoctoral qualification from a leading industrially advanced nation.

5. Reviewer Selection: Great care will be taken to ensure that reviewers are selected based on their specialized expertise directly relevant to the submitted manuscript. To foster a comprehensive review that resonates with the manuscript’s geographical and contextual focus, the editor-in-chief or section editor will strive to include at least one reviewer from the country or region central to the study.

6. Peer Review Criteria: Reviewers will rigorously assess the manuscript against key criteria, including the quality of the research in terms of relevance, originality, and innovation. Their evaluations will serve as the foundational basis for the subsequent decisions regarding publication.

7. Incorporating Feedback: Authors are required to thoroughly address all revisions suggested by the reviewers. Should there be any discrepancies or disagreements, it is imperative that the author(s) provide comprehensive clarifications or explanations that articulate their perspective on each point of contention.

8. Validation of Changes: The revised and updated manuscript will be re-evaluated by the editor-in-chief or section editor to confirm that all necessary modifications align with the feedback from the reviewers. This stage ensures fidelity to the review process and maintains the integrity of the publication.

9. Expert Consultation: In instances of conflicting reports or unresolvable differences between reviewers, the editor may seek the opinions of editorial advisers to provide additional insights and guidance.

10. Final Publishing Decision: Ultimately, the “editor-in-chief” holds the decisive authority regarding the publication or rejection of the revised manuscript, ensuring that only works of the highest quality are disseminated through JIAHH.

Evaluation Principles

The peer reviewers of JIAHH will evaluate each manuscript against a minimum of 10 principles and standards essential for acceptance. This rigorous framework guarantees that published works contribute meaningfully to the evolving discourse within digital culture and education, fostering academic growth and collaboration. The principles will encompass aspects such as originality, research rigor, relevance to the field, and adherence to ethical standards, thereby maintaining the integrity and excellence associated with the JIAHH brand.

Evaluation Criteria for Manuscript Submission

In assessing the quality of submitted manuscripts to ensure they meet the rigorous standards of publication, the Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Health Horizons (JIAHH) employs the following ten comprehensive criteria:

1. Title Clarity and Specificity: The title of the manuscript should encapsulate its essence succinctly and clearly, typically comprising 10 to 15 words. It must employ active verbs rather than relying on complex noun-based phrases, thereby immediately conveying the core focus and purpose of the article. An effective title not only piques interest but also provides an accurate snapshot of the main idea or ideas explored within the study.

2. Abstract Precision: The abstract serves as a concise summary of the paper's content, providing a compact view of key components, including the research problem, the study’s objectives, the methodological approach, and the principal findings. Ideally, the abstract should be between 180 and 200 words, encapsulating the essence of the research while compelling readers to delve deeper into the complete document.

3. Keyword Relevance: The selected keywords must be both sufficient and pertinent to the study. They should avoid replication of terms used in the title while further enriching the context of the research. In total, 6 to 8 descriptive keywords should embody the principal concepts and themes, effectively enhancing discoverability and relevance.

4. Introduction Overview: The introduction must guide the reader from a broad subject area to the specific topic of inquiry. It should articulate the research’s purpose, scope, context, and significance, alongside providing relevant background information. Additionally, it must address the hypothesis or research questions, a brief overview of the methodology, and a glimpse of anticipated outcomes. The introduction should conclude with an outline of the article’s organization, preparing the reader for the ensuing discussion.

5. Literature Review Insight: This section is vital for situating the study within the broader academic discourse. It should offer a comprehensive overview of the sources consulted, incorporating a thoughtful description, summary, and critical evaluation of these works. The literature review must clearly illustrate how the current study complements and enriches existing research in the field, elucidating the connections to the identified research problems.

6. Research Methodology Clarity: The methodology must be thoroughly articulated, detailing the investigative actions undertaken to address the research problem. This includes a rationale for the chosen procedures and techniques utilized for the selection, processing, and analysis of information. An effective methodology section will clarify how these methods contribute to a deeper understanding of the research issue at hand.

7. Presentation of Results: The results must be clearly and logically presented, aligning with the applied methodologies. This section should provide a detailed yet unbiased account of the study's findings without personal interpretation, allowing the data to speak for itself. Clarity and organization in presenting findings are crucial for facilitating reader comprehension and future discussions.

8. Analytical Discussion: The discussion should extend beyond mere reporting of findings; it must interpret and analyze the significance of the results within the context of existing knowledge. This section should articulate new insights or understanding gained from the research, linking back to the initial research questions or hypotheses posited in the introduction and drawing connections to the reviewed literature.

9. Conclusion and Implications: The conclusion must succinctly synthesize the key findings and explicitly relate them to the initial research objectives. It should communicate the relevance of the research to the broader field and offer critical insights that resonate with readers. If applicable, this section may also propose potential areas for future research, encouraging ongoing inquiry and exploration.

10. Language and Style Standards: The manuscript’s language should meet high standards of clarity and objectivity, prioritizing straightforward communication. The writing must be precise and unambiguous, supporting claims with solid reasoning and evidence. An active voice should prevail throughout, minimizing passive constructions to enhance reader engagement, while ensuring that the terminology remains accessible rather than excessively complex or technical.

By adhering to these criteria, authors can significantly enhance the quality of their submissions, ensuring they meet the expectations of the scholarly community and contribute meaningfully to the discourse in digital culture and education.