Submission of the Manuscript

After the manuscript has been successfully submitted, it will be screened by the Editor-in-Chief to determine whether it meets the journal’s aims and scope. The submitted manuscript will also be assessed for originality and plagiarism. If the submitted manuscript does not meet the criteria, the Editor-in-Chief may decline the submission without sending it. If the manuscript is approved, the editorial office personnel will check the paper’s formatting and citation styles and ensure adherence to the author’s guidelines. If the required conditions are not met, the manuscripts will be returned to the authors for reformatting and resubmission.

Assignment of Associate Editor and Reviewers

After the initial screening of the submitted manuscripts, the Editor-In-Chief will assign the relevant associate editor based on the content. The Associate Editor will then begin reviewing the submitted manuscripts by inviting at least three potential reviewers to assess them.

The reviewers must have different affiliations from all authors of the submitted manuscripts. Potential reviewers must evaluate the invitation based on their scientific expertise, potential conflicts of interest, and other relevant criteria. The Journal of Associated Medical Sciences guarantees that reviewers will be assigned within 3 days of the initial manuscript submission. The reviewers are usually given two to four weeks to review the manuscripts. After the review, the reviewers will submit the results, along with recommendations and suggestions, to the journal.

Manuscripts Submitted from the Institution of an Editor

Manuscripts submitted from the institution of any Associate Editor or the Editor-in-Chief are reviewed by other editors from outside that institution. The Editorial Board ensures confidentiality and equity in reviewing all manuscripts.

Evaluation of the Reviews by Associate Editor

The Associate Editor will evaluate the three reviewers' comments to make an overall decision. Consensus among at least two of the three reviewers will lead to a final decision on whether to accept, accept with revision, or reject. The Associate Editor will send a decision to the authors via the online system, along with any relevant comments submitted by the reviewers. As the journal uses a double-blind peer-review principle, all comments and suggestions are kept anonymous.

Revision

Once the authors receive the review results, comments, and suggestions, they will be asked to proceed accordingly. The revised manuscripts must be submitted with highlighted changes at the original submission number. The response to reviewers’ comments must also be submitted along with the revised manuscripts. The author will be asked to complete minor revisions within two weeks and significant revisions within four weeks. The same reviewers will re-evaluate all the revised manuscripts before making a final decision.

Decisions

There are three categories for initial decisions: accept, accept with revision, and reject. Some manuscripts are accepted provisionally, pending relatively minor modifications. In this case, the Associate Editor may conduct the review. Authors are invited to resubmit many manuscripts if revision or additional experimentation can address significant criticisms. Typically, one or more reviewers will be asked to consider the adequacy of the revisions. All revised manuscripts are carefully reexamined, and ultimate acceptability is not guaranteed. The Journal of Associated Medical Sciences does not provide for an advance determination of the acceptability of a particular manuscript for publication, nor does it promise an expedited review of selected manuscripts.

Rebuttals

If a serious scientific error occurred during the review, a letter of rebuttal may be sent to the Editor-in-Chief explaining the reasons for being reconsidered. The Editor-in-Chief must receive letters of rebuttal within 6 weeks of the date the decision letter was sent. The initial Associate Editor or additional reviewers will take up the matter when appropriate. Rebuttals challenging rejections based solely on priority are rarely successful, since the assignment of priority is necessarily a matter of opinion. Suppose the author of a rejected manuscript can make new advances that go far beyond the original submission. In that case, they will often expedite the consideration of their paper by submitting an entirely new manuscript.

 

Generative AI and AI-Assisted Technologies for the Authors

The journal’s policy refers only to manuscript preparation, not to the use of AI or AI-assisted tools to analyze and draw insights from data as part of the research.

 It is recommended that the authors use AI and AI-assisted tools to improve the manuscript's English writing and readability. The authors should carefully review and edit the results under human oversight and control, as AI may generate authoritative-sounding output that is incorrect or biased.

Before submission, the authors must ensure the work is original and does not infringe third-party rights.

Authorship implies responsibilities and tasks that can only be attributed to and performed by humans. By this, AI and AI-assisted technologies must not be listed as authors, co-authors, or cited AI.

The authors must be responsible and accountable for the content of the manuscript. Moreover, the authors should disclose in the manuscript the use of AI and AI-assisted technologies, and a statement must appear in the published article to support transparency and trust among the authors, readers, reviewers, editors, and contributors. 

 

Using AI and AI-Assisted Tools  in Creating the Figures, Images, and Artwork

AI or AI-assisted tools cannot be used to create figures or pictures or alter images in manuscripts. The tools can be used only to adjust the color’s brightness, contrast, or balance without obscuring or eliminating any information.

The exception applies only when AI or AI-assisted tools are used or are part of the research design, materials, and methods. If they are used, the authors must explain how they are used in creating the images or the alteration process. Moreover, the model or tool, version and extension numbers, and manufacturer must be indicated. However, AI or AI-assisted graphical abstracts are also not permitted.

 

Generative AI and AI-Assisted Technologies in the Journal Editorial Process

A submitted manuscript is a confidential document. Editors must not upload a submitted manuscript or any part of it into an AI-assisted tool because doing so may violate the authors’ confidentiality and proprietary rights. In addition, the paper may contain personally identifiable information and breach data privacy rights.

The editors must not upload authors’ letters to the editor using an AI-assisted tool, even to improve language and readability. The editors must be responsible and accountable for the editorial process, the final decision, and the communication to the authors.

The editors must not use generative AI or AI-assisted technologies to assist in the scientific review of a paper. The critical thinking and original assessment required for peer review are outside the scope of this technology, and there is a risk that it will generate incorrect, incomplete, or biased conclusions about the manuscript.

The editors must be responsible and accountable for the content of the submitted work.

 

Generative AI and AI-Assisted Technologies in the Peer-Reviewed Process

The manuscript is confidential, so the reviewers must not upload a submitted manuscript or any part of it into a generative-assist tool. Doing so may violate the authors’ confidentiality and proprietary rights. In addition, the paper may contain personally identifiable information and breach data privacy rights. In addition, review reports must not be uploaded to AI or AI-assisted tools, even if only to improve the language.

The reviewers must not use generative AI or AI-assisted technologies to assist in the scientific review of a paper. The critical thinking and original assessment required for peer review are outside the scope of this technology, and there is a risk that it will generate incorrect, incomplete, or biased conclusions about the manuscript. The reviewers must be responsible and accountable for the content of the review reports.