For Reviewers

Peer review is central to the quality, credibility, and impact of JAICCT. Reviewers contribute expertise in artificial intelligence and machine learning, clinical medicine, data science, regulatory and ethical considerations, and reproducibility. We deeply appreciate the time and professional commitment our reviewers invest.

How to Become a Reviewer

Researchers, clinicians, data scientists, and AI experts may apply at any time by completing the Reviewer Expertise Registration Form. Specify your areas of expertise and methodological skills (AI modeling, statistics, imaging, NLP, clinical trial design, etc.).

Contact: reviewers@jaicct.org

Review Workflow

Manuscript Submission — Author submits via the online system.
Editorial Pre-Review — Editor-in-Chief or Deputy Editor screens for novelty, rigor, relevance, AI reproducibility, and completeness.
Reviewer Selection — Qualified reviewers are identified based on declared expertise.
Reviewer Invitation — You receive an email with a link to accept or decline.
Manuscript Review — Evaluate and submit your recommendation and comments.
Editorial Decision — Handling editor integrates recommendations and issues a decision.
Decision Notification — Authors receive the decision letter.

Review Deadline and Access

The standard review deadline is 14 days. Extensions may be granted on request. Access the manuscript through the invitation email link or the Reviewer Center in the submission system. If you downloaded the manuscript PDF, it must be deleted after completing your review.

How to Conduct a Review

JAICCT provides a structured review form. You will be asked to comment on:

Scientific validity and methodological rigor
AI transparency and reproducibility
Study design quality
Clinical significance
Ethical appropriateness
Clarity and completeness of reporting

Submit comments in two separate fields: Comments to Authors (shared) and Confidential Comments to Editors (not shared with authors).

Evaluating AI-Related Research

Because JAICCT specializes in clinical AI, reviewers must specifically assess:

Algorithm transparency and reproducibility
Dataset adequacy and bias mitigation strategies
Clinical relevance and safety considerations
Proper reporting (TRIPOD-AI, CONSORT-AI, STARD-AI)
Validation methodology and statistical rigor
FAIR data and code availability

Reviewer Recognition

Annual Reviewer Certificate
Record of Completed Reviews (for academic CVs)
Eligibility for Annual Reviewer Excellence Awards
Outstanding reviewers may be invited to join the Editorial Advisory Panel, serve as Guest Editors, or contribute invited commentaries

Reviewer Resources

Top 10 Principles of Reviewing AI–Clinical Studies
How to Evaluate AI Algorithms for Reproducibility
Guidelines for Reviewing Medical AI Trials
Reporting Guidelines and EQUATOR Checklist Integration
Bias, Fairness, and AI Ethics in Clinical Research

Video tutorials from the editorial leadership are also provided on this website.

Reviewer Code of Conduct

1. Purpose and Scope

This Code of Conduct outlines professional, ethical, and procedural standards for all JAICCT reviewers — whether invited or voluntarily registered. It applies to every manuscript review conducted for the journal.

2. Integrity and Professionalism

Reviewers must approach every review with objectivity, fairness, and respect; evaluate manuscripts based solely on scientific merit, rigor, and relevance; avoid personal criticism and derogatory language; and provide clear, evidence-based feedback.

3. Confidentiality

Reviewers must not share or discuss manuscripts outside the review process, not upload manuscripts to any online service, AI system, file-sharing platform, or cloud storage lacking confidentiality protections, and must delete all downloaded files immediately after submitting the review. Any breach of confidentiality must be reported to the editorial office immediately.

4. Conflicts of Interest

Reviewers must decline if they have any conflict of interest — including personal, financial, institutional, or collaborative relationships with the authors; competing interests; involvement in competing research; or supervisory/employment relationships. When in doubt, notify the editorial office.

5. Objectivity and Fairness

Evaluate the manuscript's content — not the authors. Base all criticism on methodology, interpretation, and evidence. Avoid biased, discriminatory, or culturally insensitive language. Provide constructive suggestions; avoid harsh or sarcastic commentary.

6. Responsibilities to Authors

Feedback must be detailed, specific, actionable, evidence-based, and respectful. Reviewers must not require authors to cite the reviewer's own work unless genuinely essential, must not request analyses beyond the study's scope, and must not ask for disruptive changes without scientific basis.

7. Responsibilities to Editors

Submit structured, balanced assessments within the deadline (14 days). Inform editors promptly if an extension is needed. Use the Confidential Comments to Editors section for concerns about plagiarism, duplicate submission, ethics violations, data fabrication, or AI reproducibility issues.

8. Use of AI Tools

Strictly prohibited: uploading manuscript content to generative AI platforms, using online summarizers or rewriting tools that store text, or using LLMs to generate scientific critique or methodological judgment.

Conditionally allowed (with written approval from reviewers@jaicct.org): using AI tools to improve grammar or clarity of reviewer comments, provided no part of the manuscript is uploaded or disclosed.

Reviewers remain fully responsible for all submitted content.

9. Prohibition of Manuscript Misuse

Reviewers must never use unpublished data for personal research, cite or distribute manuscript content, contact authors directly, or exploit privileged information for competitive advantage. Misuse constitutes serious ethical misconduct.

10. Review Quality

Each review must demonstrate scientific understanding, address major strengths and weaknesses, include actionable suggestions, identify ethical or methodological issues, and uphold accuracy and fairness. Incomplete, superficial, biased, or unprofessional reviews may lead to removal from the reviewer registry, disqualification from editorial roles, or — in severe misconduct cases — notification to the reviewer's institution.

11. Timeliness

Accept invitations only when able to complete the review. Meet deadlines. Notify the editorial office immediately if delays arise. Timeliness directly impacts authors and the wider scientific community.

12. Communication

All reviewer communication must go through the journal's submission system or directly via the editorial office email. Reviewers must never contact authors directly.

13. Continuous Improvement

JAICCT encourages reviewers to stay updated with COPE, ICMJE, and EQUATOR standards; follow advancements in clinical AI and methodology; and participate in JAICCT workshops, webinars, and reviewer training.

14. Acceptance of This Code

By accepting a review invitation, reviewers affirm they have read and understood this Code of Conduct, agree to comply fully, and commit to upholding scientific, ethical, and professional standards. Failure to adhere may result in removal from the reviewer pool.