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 its originality and not being plagiarized. 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 unmet, the manuscripts will be returned to the author 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. The potential reviewers must consider the invitation according to their scientific expertise, possible conflicts of interest, and other relevant criteria. The Journal of Associated Medical Sciences</em > guarantees that the reviewers will be assigned within 3 days of submitting the initial manuscript. The reviewers are usually given two to four weeks to review the manuscripts. After the review, the reviewers will submit the results 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 comments of the three reviewers to make an overall decision. Consensus results from at least two of 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 the revisions within two weeks for minor and four weeks for significant revisions. The same reviewers will re-evaluate all the revised manuscripts before making a final decision.

Decisions

There are four 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 that challenge rejections based on priority alone 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

JAMS’s policy refers only to manuscript preparation, not to using AI and AI-assisted tools to analyze and draw insight from data as a part of the research.

 It is recommended that the authors use AI and AI-assisted tools to improve English writing for the readability and language of the manuscript. The authors should carefully review and edit the result with human oversight and control since AI may generate authoritative-sounding output incorrectly or bias.

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 since it will 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 applied only for adjusting 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 designs, 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 is 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 containing personally identifiable information may 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 needed for peer review are outside the scope of this technology, and there is a risk that the technology 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 containing personally identifiable information may breach data privacy rights. In addition, review reports must not be uploaded into AI or AI-assisted tools, even if it is just for improving 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 needed for peer review are outside the scope of this technology, and there is a risk that the technology will generate incorrect, incomplete, or biased conclusions about the manuscript. The reviewers must be responsible and accountable for the content of the review reports.