Editorial Policies

Focus and Scope

The Internal Medicine and Medical Investigation Journal  promotes improved patient care, research, and education in primary care, general internal medicine, and hospital medicine. Its articles focus on topics such as clinical medicine, epidemiology, prevention, healthcare delivery, curriculum development, and many other non-traditional themes, in addition to classic clinical research on problems in internal medicine.

 

Section Policies

Articles

Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed

Letter to Editor

Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed

Review

Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed

Study Protocol

Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed

Original Articles

Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed

Case Report

Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed

Radiographic Images

Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Unchecked Peer Reviewed

Radiographic Images

Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed
 

Peer Review Process

The purpose of peer review is to ensure that only good science is published. It is an objective at the heart of high-quality scholarly publishing and is carried out by all reputable scientific journals. Our peer reviewer play a vital role in maintaining the high standards of the Internal Medicine and Medical Investigation Journal. All manuscripts are peer reviewed following the procedures outlined below. 

Initial manuscript evaluation. The editor-in-chief first evaluates all manuscripts. It is rare, but it is possible for an exceptional manuscript to be accepted at this stage. Manuscripts that are rejected at this stage are deemed insufficiently original, have serious scientific flaws, have poor grammar, or are outside the aims and scope of the journal. Those that meet the minimum criteria are normally passed on to at least three experts for review. 

Type of Peer Review. The Internal Medicine and Medical Investigation Journal uses double-blind reviewing, where both the peer reviewer and the author remain anonymous throughout the process. 

How the peer reviewer Is Selected. Whenever possible, peer reviewer are matched to the manuscript according to their expertise. Our database of reviewers is constantly being updated. 

Peer Reviewer Reports. peer reviewer are asked to evaluate whether the manuscript is original, is methodologically sound, follows appropriate ethical guidelines, has results that are clearly presented and support the conclusions, and properly references previous relevant work.

Language correction is not part of the peer review process, but peer reviewer may suggest corrections to the manuscript. 

How Long Does the Review Process Take? The time required for the review process is dependent on the response of the peer reviewer. Should the peer reviewer reports contradict one another or if a report is unnecessarily delayed, an additional expert opinion will be sought. In rare cases in which it is not possible to find a second peer reviewer to review the manuscript, or when the one peer reviewer’s report has thoroughly convinced the editor-in-chief, decisions at this stage to accept, reject, or ask the author to revise the manuscript are made based on only one peer reviewer’s report. The editor-in-chief’s decision will be sent to the author with recommendations made by the peer reviewer, which usually includes verbatim comments. Revised manuscripts might be returned to the initial peer reviewers, who may then request another revision of a manuscript. 

Final Report. A final decision to accept or reject the manuscript will be sent to the author along with any recommendations made by the peer reviewers and may include verbatim comments by the referees. 

Editor-in-Chief’s Decision Is Final. Peer reviewers advise the editor-in-chief, who makes the final decision to accept or reject a manuscript.

Becoming a peer reviewer for Internal Medicine and Medical Investigation.  If you are not currently a Peer reviewer for the Internal Medicine and Medical Investigation Journal and would like to be considered, please contact the editor-in-chief. The benefits of peer reviewing for Transport Policy include the opportunity to read and evaluate the latest work in your research area at an early stage and contribute to the overall integrity of scientific research and its published literature. You may also be able to list your work for the Internal Medicine and Medical Investigation Journal as part of your professional development requirements for various professional societies and organizations.

 

Open Access Policy

This journal provides immediate open access to its content on the principle that making research freely available to the public supports a greater global exchange of knowledge.

 

Archiving

This journal utilizes the LOCKSS system to create a distributed archiving system among participating libraries and permits those libraries to create permanent archives of the journal for purposes of preservation and restoration. More...

 

Publication ethics and publication malpractice statement

The Internal Medicine and Medical Investigation Journal adheres to the principles of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). The COPE’s code of conduct guidelines is available at: http://www.publicationethics.org

The Internal Medicine and Medical Investigation Journal applies the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) to articles and other published works. If a manuscript is submitted for publication in the Internal Medicine and Medical Investigation Journal, authors agree to have the CC BY license applied to their work. Under this open-access license, authors agree that anyone can reuse their article in whole or part for any purpose, free of charge, even for commercial purposes. Anyone may copy, distribute, or reuse the content as long as the author and original source are properly cited. This ensures that Internal Medicine and Medical Investigation Journal content can be used freely in the service of research. 

Part A. Editor’s Responsibilities:

A.1. Publication decisions

The editor-in-chief of the Internal Medicine and Medical Investigation Journal is responsible for deciding which manuscripts will be published. Associate editors and peer reviewers treat all manuscripts as confidential documents and do not share or discuss with others except if authorized by the editor-in-chief. 

A.2. Fair play

The editor-in-chief evaluates manuscripts for their intellectual content without regard to the host institution or to an author’s race, gender, sexual orientation, religious beliefs, ethnic origin, citizenship, or political philosophy.

A.3. Confidentiality

The editors and editorial staff will not disclose any information about manuscripts to anyone other than the corresponding author, reviewers, potential reviewers, and other editorial advisers as appropriate. In the case of a misconduct investigation, the editor-in-chief may disclose material to third parties (e.g., an institutional investigation committee or other editors). 

 A.4. Disclosure and conflicts of interest

Unpublished material disclosed in a submitted manuscript must not be used in an editor’s or peer reviewer’s own research.

A.5. Corrections

When genuine errors in a published work are pointed out by readers, authors, or editors, a correction will be published as soon as possible. If the error renders the work or substantial parts of the work invalid, the article will be retracted with an explanation as to the reason for the retraction.

A.6. Ensuring the integrity of the published record

If serious concerns are raised by readers, reviewers, or others about the conduct, validity, or reporting of a published work, the editor-in-chief will initially contact the authors and ask them to respond to the concerns. If the response is unsatisfactory, the journal will take this to the institutional level. In cases where concerns are very serious and the published work is likely to influence clinical practice or public health, the journal may consider informing readers about these concerns, while the investigation is ongoing. Once an investigation is concluded, the journal will explain the findings of the investigation. If serious misconduct has occurred, the editor-in-chief may decide to retract a published work even if an investigation by an institution or national body does not recommend it.

Part B. Reviewers’ responsibilities:

B.1. Contribution to Editorial Decisions

Peer review assists the editor-in-chief in making editorial decisions; it also, through editorial communications with the author, assists in improving the manuscript. Reviewers are expected to provide constructive comments on the manuscript that help the author revise the manuscript and achieve higher standards and quality.

B.2. Promptness

Reviewers who feel unqualified to review the research reported in a manuscript or who know that a prompt review will not be possible should notify the editor-in-chief and excuse themselves from the review process.

 B.3. Confidentiality

Reviewers should treat any manuscript received for review as a confidential document. The manuscript should not be shared with or discussed with others, except as authorized by the editor-in-chief.

B.4. Standards of Objectivity

Reviews should be conducted objectively. Personal criticism of authors is inappropriate. Peer review should express their views clearly, with supporting arguments.

B.5. Acknowledgement of Sources

Reviewers should identify relevant published work that has not been cited by the authors. Reviewers should alert the editor-in-chief if they find any substantial similarity or overlap between the manuscript under consideration and any other published article of which they have personal knowledge.

B.6. Disclosure and Conflict of Interest

Privileged information or ideas obtained through the peer review process must be kept confidential and not used for personal advantage. Reviewers should not agree to review manuscripts if they have conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships, or if they have personal or professional connections with any of the authors, companies, or institutions.

B.7. Reviewer misconduct

The Internal Medicine and Medical Investigation Journal takes reviewer misconduct seriously and will investigate any allegation of breach of confidentiality, non-declaration of conflicts of interest (financial or non-financial), inappropriate use of confidential material, or delay of peer review for competitive advantage. 

Pat C. Author responsibilities:

C.1.Reporting standards

Authors of reports of original research should present an accurate account of the work performed as well as an objective discussion of its significance. Underlying data should be represented accurately in the manuscript. A manuscript should contain sufficient details and references to allow others to replicate the work. Fraudulent or knowingly inaccurate statements constitute unethical behavior and are unacceptable.

C.2. Data Access and Retention

Authors are asked to provide the raw data related to a manuscript for editorial review. They should be prepared to provide public access to these data and should retain them for a reasonable time after publication.

C.3. Originality and Plagiarism

The Internal Medicine and Medical Investigation Journal uses iThenticate software to check the originality of submitted manuscripts and will provide the resulting “Similarity Report” to the authors. Authors should ensure that submitted work is original and has not been published elsewhere in any language; and if the authors have used the work and/or words of others, this should be properly cited or quoted. Applicable copyright laws and conventions should be followed. Copyrighted material (e.g., tables, figures, or extensive quotations) should be reproduced only with appropriate permission and acknowledgement. 

C.4. Multiple, Redundant, or Concurrent Publication

Submitting the same manuscript to more than one journal concurrently constitutes unethical behavior and is unacceptable.

C.5. Acknowledgement of Sources

Proper acknowledgment of the work of others must always made. Authors should cite publications that have been influential to the reported work.

C.6. Authorship of the Manuscript

Authorship should be limited to those who have made a significant contribution to the conception, design, execution, or interpretation of the reported study. All those who have made significant contributions should be listed as an author. If others have participated in certain substantive aspects of the research project but do not meet the criteria for authorship, they should be acknowledged or listed as contributors.

The corresponding author should ensure that all appropriate coauthors and no inappropriate coauthors are listed on the manuscript and that all coauthors have reviewed and approved the final version of the manuscript and agreed to its submission for publication.

C.7. Individual and organizational acknowledgments:

All individuals or organizations that have contributed to the work but do not meet the criteria for authorship should be acknowledged in the acknowledgments section of the manuscript. The corresponding author should not acknowledge any individual or organization without written permission.

C.8. Hazards

If the work involves chemicals, procedures, or equipment that have any unusual hazards inherent in their use, the author must clearly identify these in the manuscript.

C.9. Reporting of research involving humans or animals

Appropriate approval, licensing, or registration should be obtained before the research begins, and details should be provided in the report (e.g., Institutional Review Board approval, Research Ethics Committee approval, or approval by national licensing authorities for the use of animals). If requested by journal editors, authors should provide evidence that reported research received the appropriate approval and was carried out ethically (e.g., copies of approvals, licenses, or participant consent forms). Authors should not cite or share identifiable personal information collected in the course of research without the specific consent of the individual (or their lawful representative).

C.10. Disclosure and Conflicts of Interest

Authors should disclose in their manuscript any financial or other substantive conflict of interest that might be construed to influence their results or interpretations. All sources of financial support should be disclosed.

C.11. Fundamental errors in published works

If an author discovers a significant error or inaccuracy in their published work, it is their obligation to promptly notify the editor-in-chief or publisher and cooperate to retract or correct the article.