Guide to Referees

Guide to Referees


Peer review
The Medical Data Mining editors are greatly appreciated for the reviewers whose thoughtful comments and critiques are essential to improve the quality of the articles. It is only by collaboration with our reviewers that editors can ensure that the manuscripts we publish are among the most important in their scientific field. We will inquire potential reviewers before sending them manuscripts to review. Reviewers should notice that these messages contain confidential information, which should be keep secret.


General information
The following types of contribution to Medical Data Mining journal are peer-reviewed: Articles, Reviews, Hypothesis. We ask peer-reviewers to submit their reports via our secure online system by following the link provided in the editor's email. For any general questions and comments about the peer-review process, the journal or its editorial policies, we encourage reviewers to contact us using the feedback links.


Criteria for publication
Medical Data Mining focuses on the following areas:
1. Meta-analysis

2. Network Pharmacology

3. Bioinformatics (eg. omics research)

4. Public Database Analysis

5. Epidemiology

6. Big Data Analysis

7. Chinese medicine data mining

8. Real World Research

9. Medical Statistics

10. Biomedical Mathematical Model

11. Neural Network and Computer Deep Learning

12. Artificial Intelligence and Medicine

 
The review process
Only those papers that seem most likely to meet our editorial criteria are sent for formal review, typically to two or three reviewers. The editors then make a decision based on the reviewers' advice, from among several possibilities:
1. Accept, with or without editorial revisions 
2. Revise their manuscript to be acceptable for publication before a final decision is reached, including major revision and minor revision.
3. Reject temporarily and permit resubmission 
4. Reject outright, no more resubmission.

 

Writing the review
We ask reviewers the following questions, to provide an assessment of the various aspects of a manuscript:
   Key results: Please indicate what you consider to be the outstanding features of the article. Is it related to medical data mining?
   Validity: Does the manuscript have weaknesses which should prohibit its publication? If so, please provide details.
   Significance: If the conclusions are not original, please provide relevant references. On a more subjective note, do you feel that the results presented are of immediate interest to many people in the relevant fields?
   Methodology: Please comment on the validity of the approach, quality of the data and quality of presentation. Please note that we expect our reviewers to review the quality and presentation of the figures as well as the validity of the statistical methods used to interpret them, including supplementary information. Is the reporting of data and methodology sufficiently detailed and transparen?
   Statistics analyze: All error bars should be defined in the corresponding figure legends; please comment if that’s not the case. Please include in your report a specific comment on the appropriateness of any statistical tests, and the accuracy of the description of any error bars and probability values.
   Conclusions: Do you find that the conclusions and data interpretation are valid and reliable? Please make a summary of the specific strengths and weaknesses of the overall result.
   Suggested improvements: Please list additional experiments or data that could help strengthening the work in a revision.
   References: Does this manuscript reference previous literature appropriately? In particular, when previously published work has undercut the novelty of the present findings, it is extremely helpful to include in the body of the review detailed citation of the relevant articles and data.
   Clarity and context: Is the abstract clear, accessible? Are abstract, introduction and conclusions appropriate?
   Please indicate any particular part of the manuscript, data, or analyses that you feel is outside the scope of your expertise, or that you were unable to assess fully.

When declined manuscripts are transferred to another journal in the TMR portfolio the referee comments are also transferred, and can be used to determine suitability of publication at the receiving journal. In the case of manuscript transfers between TMR journals with in-house editors, referee identities are also transferred. Confidential comments to the editor are welcome by email.