Peer Review Process

Peer Review Process

The Journal of Intelligent Drug Discovery and Genomic Medicine (IJIDDGM) is committed to rigorous, fair and confidential peer review. Research manuscripts considered suitable for the journal undergo double-anonymous peer review, in which the identities of authors and reviewers are concealed from each other.

1. Initial Editorial Assessment

Each submission is initially assessed by the editorial team for alignment with the journal's aims and scope, scholarly quality, originality, methodological adequacy, ethical compliance and adherence to submission requirements. Manuscripts that do not meet these requirements may be declined without external peer review.

2. Reviewer Selection

Manuscripts proceeding to peer review are assigned to reviewers with relevant subject expertise. Reviewers are expected to disclose any actual, potential or perceived competing interests and should decline assignments where their impartiality could reasonably be questioned.

3. Double-Anonymous Review

IJIDDGM operates a double-anonymous peer-review process. Authors must remove identifying information from the manuscript and its file metadata. Reviewers must not attempt to identify or contact the authors and must treat manuscripts and associated materials as confidential.

4. Review Criteria

Reviewers evaluate manuscripts according to criteria including originality and significance, methodological rigour, validity of analytical and computational methods, quality of data and validation, statistical analysis, reproducibility, ethical compliance, clarity of presentation and whether the conclusions are adequately supported by the results.

Where applicable, particular attention is given to artificial intelligence and machine learning methodology, genomic and multi-omics analysis, molecular modelling, computational drug discovery, dataset quality, potential bias, data leakage, biological relevance and appropriate interpretation of computational predictions.

5. Review Timeline

Invited reviewers are normally requested to respond to the review invitation within one week and to complete an accepted review within three weeks. These timeframes may be adjusted where necessary to ensure an appropriate and thorough scholarly assessment.

6. Editorial Decision

Following peer review, the editor considers the reviewers' reports and the manuscript and may request revision, seek additional review, accept the manuscript or decline publication. Reviewer recommendations inform the editorial decision but do not determine it independently.

7. Revised Manuscripts

Where revisions are requested, authors should respond carefully to the reviewers' and editor's comments and clearly identify the changes made. Revised manuscripts may be returned to the original reviewers or assessed by the editor, depending on the nature and extent of the revisions.

8. Confidentiality and Research Integrity

Editors and reviewers must maintain the confidentiality of submitted manuscripts and must not use unpublished information obtained through peer review for personal, professional or financial advantage.

Suspected plagiarism, data fabrication, inappropriate data or image manipulation, undisclosed competing interests, ethical violations or other research-integrity concerns may be investigated in accordance with the journal's publication and ethics policies.