Peer Review Process

Overview
Peer review is the system used to assess the quality of manuscripts before publication. Independent experts in the relevant fields of biomedical informatics and health technology evaluate submissions for originality, validity, and significance. Their feedback helps the editorial team determine whether a manuscript should be accepted for publication.
BMI adheres to a double blind peer review system to ensure fairness, integrity, and quality. In this model, reviewers do not know the identity of the authors, and authors do not know the identity of the reviewers.
________________________________________
Why Peer Review?
Peer review is an essential part of scientific publishing. It ensures that manuscripts are:
•    More robust – reviewers may identify gaps requiring clarification, additional data, or further experiments.
•    Easier to read – reviewers suggest improvements to enhance clarity and readability.
•    More useful – reviewers assess the importance and relevance of the work to the biomedical informatics community.
BMI also recognizes the value of reviewer contributions. Reviewers are encouraged to link their work to their ORCID iD for proper credit. Platforms such as Publons and ResearchGate can be used to validate and record peer review activity.
________________________________________
Peer Review Process Overview
1. Article Submission
•    Authors must register and submit manuscripts via the BMI online submission system.
2. Initial Check
•    The editorial office verifies that the manuscript adheres to BMI’s Author Guidelines, focusing on structure, formatting, and scope alignment.
3. Plagiarism and AI Screening
•    All submissions undergo a Turnitin similarity check and AI detection analysis. 
o    Acceptable similarity index: ≤ 20%
o    Acceptable AI detection score: ≤ 25%
o    Higher scores may result in rejection or mandatory revision before review.
4. Editorial Assessment
•    The editorial team evaluates the manuscript’s relevance, clarity, and scientific merit.
5. Reviewer Selection
•    At least three reviewers are invited based on subject expertise.
•    The process continues until at least two reviewers accept the invitation.
6. Reviewer Response
•    Invited reviewers confirm expertise, check for conflicts of interest, and accept or decline the review assignment.
7. Review Process
•    Reviewers read the manuscript thoroughly, provide detailed comments, and assess originality, methodology, ethical compliance, and contribution.
8. Review Evaluation
•    The editorial team examines reviewer feedback to make a preliminary decision.
•    If reviews are significantly divergent, an additional reviewer may be invited.
9. Preliminary Decision
•    Authors receive anonymized reviewer comments along with the editorial team’s initial decision.
10. Revised Manuscript Submission
•    Authors must address reviewer comments, highlight modifications in red text, and provide a point-by-point response letter.
11. Final Decision
•    The editorial team reviews the revised manuscript to ensure all feedback has been addressed.
•    If accepted, authors must settle the publication fee.
•    The manuscript is then forwarded to the copyediting and publishing team.
________________________________________
Timeline and Acceptance Rate
•    Median time to initial decision: 3 weeks
•    Submission to publication: ~5 months (including peer review and production stages)
•    Acceptance rate: ~40%