Decision-Making Process

Editorial Decision-Making Process

ACADEMIA International Journal of Clinical & Translational Health (AIJCTH)

At AIJCTH, we are dedicated to a transparent, structured, and ethical editorial process. Every manuscript undergoes a rigorous evaluation to ensure it contributes meaningfully to clinical and translational healthcare research. Our decision-making process is designed to uphold academic integrity, methodological rigor, and scientific relevance.

1. Initial Submission Screening

Preliminary Editorial Review

Upon manuscript submission, the editorial office conducts an initial screening to confirm:

  • Compliance with AIJCTH’s submission guidelines (e.g., title, abstract, references, ethical statements)

  • A plagiarism check using tools such as Turnitin (maximum similarity index threshold: 10%)

  • Inclusion of required declarations (e.g., author contributions, funding, conflict of interest, ethics approval)

Scope and Relevance Check

The Editor-in-Chief or Section Editor evaluates whether the manuscript aligns with AIJCTH’s focus areas—such as clinical research, biomedical innovation, public health, translational science, and healthcare systems. Submissions outside this scope may be desk-rejected without peer review.

2. Peer Review Process

Reviewer Assignment

Manuscripts passing the initial screening are assigned to at least two independent reviewers with subject-matter expertise. AIJCTH utilizes a double-blind peer review process to ensure objectivity and fairness.

Evaluation Criteria

Reviewers evaluate manuscripts based on:

  • Originality and contribution to clinical or translational knowledge

  • Scientific and methodological rigor

  • Accuracy and clarity of results and conclusions

  • Compliance with ethical standards and citation norms

  • Relevance to researchers, clinicians, and healthcare policymakers

Reviewer Recommendations

Reviewers may recommend one of the following outcomes:

✅ Accept
✏️ Minor Revisions (editorial review only)
???? Major Revisions (may require re-review)
❌ Reject

3. Editorial Evaluation and Final Decision

Review Synthesis

The handling editor consolidates reviewer feedback. In cases of significantly divergent opinions, a third review may be solicited or the case referred to the editorial board for further consultation.

Final Decision

The Editor-in-Chief makes the final decision based on all available assessments. Possible outcomes include:

  • Accept

  • Minor Revisions Required

  • Major Revisions Required

  • Reject

A detailed decision letter, including anonymized reviewer feedback, is sent to the corresponding author.

4. Revisions and Resubmission

Minor Revisions

Authors typically have 2–4 weeks to revise. These are reviewed by the handling editor to verify compliance with reviewer comments.

Major Revisions

Authors are granted 4–8 weeks for substantial revisions. Depending on changes, the manuscript may return to the original reviewers for re-evaluation.

Resubmission After Rejection

Manuscripts that are rejected are not eligible for reconsideration unless resubmitted as a new manuscript with substantial revisions and justification, subject to editorial approval.

5. Communication and Appeals

Decision Notification

Authors receive a formal communication that includes:

  • The editorial decision

  • Consolidated reviewer comments

  • Next steps or revision instructions

Appeals Process

Authors may appeal by submitting a formal written justification. Appeals are reviewed by the Editor-in-Chief and, when appropriate, an independent expert panel. All appeal decisions are final.

6. Post-Acceptance Workflow

Final Submission Requirements

Upon acceptance, authors must provide:

  • The final, revised manuscript

  • Author biographies

  • Signed copyright and licensing agreements

  • High-resolution figures/tables (if applicable)

Copyediting and Proofing

All accepted manuscripts undergo professional copyediting. Authors are provided with page proofs for final verification prior to publication.

Online Publication

Accepted articles are published online in the forthcoming issue and made available under a CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 license, supporting open access for non-commercial use.

7. Ethical Oversight

Conflict of Interest

All parties involved must disclose any financial, institutional, or personal interests that could influence the editorial outcome.

Research Ethics Compliance

Submissions involving human participants must include:

  • Institutional Review Board (IRB) or ethics committee approval

  • Informed consent declarations where applicable

Data Integrity

AIJCTH holds a strong commitment to data transparency, reproducibility, and ethical conduct. Allegations of misconduct (e.g., fabrication or manipulation) are investigated thoroughly and may lead to retraction or institutional notification if confirmed.

This editorial framework reflects AIJCTH’s mission to ensure scholarly quality, ethical publishing, and the global dissemination of impactful clinical and translational health research.