Peer Review Process

Peer Review Policy

Arya Journal of Clinical Innovation and Digital Medicine (AJCIDM)

The journal follows a rigorous, transparent, and ethical peer review process to ensure high-quality scholarly work in clinical sciences and digital healthcare. A double-blind system is used where both authors and reviewers remain anonymous.

01

Initial Manuscript Screening

All submitted manuscripts undergo an initial evaluation by the Editorial Office.

The manuscript is checked for:

  • Scope and relevance to clinical research and digital medicine
  • Originality and plagiarism
  • Ethical compliance
  • Formatting and author guidelines

Manuscripts not meeting requirements may be desk rejected or returned.

02

Assignment to Editor

Manuscripts are assigned to the Editor-in-Chief or Handling Editor.

  • Scientific and clinical merit
  • Novelty and originality
  • Relevance to scope
  • Suitability for review
03

Reviewer Selection

2–3 independent reviewers are selected based on:

  • Domain expertise
  • Research background
  • No conflicts of interest
04

Double-Blind Peer Review

Reviewers evaluate:

  • Scientific quality
  • Methodological rigor
  • Clarity and structure
  • Clinical relevance
  • Validity of conclusions
05

Reviewer Recommendations

  • Accept
  • Minor revision
  • Major revision
  • Reject

Authors must revise and respond within the given timeframe.

06

Editorial Decision

  • Accept
  • Minor revision
  • Major revision
  • Reject

Additional reviewers may be consulted if needed.

✓

Commitment to Ethical Standards

AJCIDM maintains the highest standards of publication ethics, confidentiality, and transparency. All participants must follow ethical publishing practices.