Guidelines for Reviewers

QIMS aims to provide a service to authors and the wider research community by making as much research available as possible, provided it meets our journal’s high standards for research conduct and ethical procedures and receives approval after peer review. This guidelines for reviewers are made based on the Committee on Publication Ethics Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers and Recommendations for the Conduct, Reporting, Editing, and Publication of Scholarly Work in Medical Journals, which also provide further information on how to be objective and constructive in your review.

1. Peer review mode

QIMS uses double-blind peer review, which means:

  • the reviewer’s name is NOT disclosed to the author
  • the author’s name is NOT disclosed to the reviewer

2. The role of reviewers

If we require your expertise to evaluate a manuscript, we will send you an invitation by email. You can then accept or decline this invitation through our online submission system. By agreeing to review, you provide an essential service to the journal and the scientific community, helping to ensure that all published research is methodologically rigorous, scientifically sound, ethically conducted, and reported in line with relevant guidelines (e.g., the CARE guidelines for case reports).

Reviewers are expected to evaluate manuscripts in a timely, transparent, and ethical manner, in accordance with the COPE guidelines (https://publicationethics.org/guidance/guideline/ethical-guidelines-peer-reviewers).

We greatly appreciate the time reviewers dedicate to preparing their evaluations. Reviewers will be consulted on a revised manuscript only if, in the editor's judgment, the paper has been significantly improved but still requires further expert input. The final responsibility for decisions on acceptance or rejection rests with the editor. In many cases, a decision can be reached based solely on the editor's evaluation of the revised manuscript and the authors' point-by-point responses. Therefore, reviewers are not automatically invited for a second round of review. Additional review—whether from the original reviewers or new ones—will be sought only when editorial evaluation indicates that further expert input is necessary to assess the revisions.

3. Recognition for reviewers

QIMS’ publisher AME has entered into an official partnership with Publons, as of April 2020. The partnership enables the contributions of our expert peer reviewers to be easily recognized. QIMS’ peer review system is now integrated seamlessly into the Publons platform: (https://publons.com/journal/22608/quantitative-imaging-in-medicine-and-surgery). As part of the review submission process, QIMS reviewers can now opt in to Publons, and the review data can be transferred to Publons upon submission. For more information, please refer to: https://qims.amegroups.org/announcement/view/3764.

4. To become a reviewer

If you would like to become a reviewer for our journal, please send an email to the Editorial Office (qims@amepc.org) with a copy of your CV attached and an indication of your review interests.

5. Guidance for peer reviewers

  • When you provide a review via our submission system, please declare any competing interests you may have in relation to the article. These could be of a personal, professional, or financial nature. For more details, please refer to: https://www.amegroups.com/pages/conflicts-of-interest#content-title.
  • Before writing your review, you may find it helpful to browse our guidelines for authors. Reviews should be conducted fairly and objectively. Criticism should be objective, not merely based on differences of opinion, and should aim to help the author improve their paper.
  • All unpublished manuscripts are confidential documents. The existence of a manuscript under review should not be revealed to anyone other than the peer reviewers and editorial staff. Peer reviewers are required to maintain confidentiality regarding the manuscripts they review and must not divulge any information about a specific manuscript or its content to any third party without prior permission from the journal’s editors, which may prohibit the uploading of the manuscript to software or other AI technologies where confidentiality cannot be assured. Reviewers should disclose to editors if and how AI technology is being used to facilitate their review and be aware that AI can generate authoritative-sounding output that can be incorrect, incomplete, or biased.
  • Reviewers must not recommend excessive citations of their own work (self-citations), another author's work (honorary citations), or articles from the journal to which the manuscript was submitted as a means of inflating citation counts. References may be suggested as needed, but must clearly improve the quality of the manuscript under review, accompanied by a rationale.
  • If we invite you to review an article and you choose to discuss the manuscript with a colleague, please remind them of the confidential nature of the paper and acknowledge their input in your review. Please also encourage your colleagues to register as reviewers.
  • If you have any serious concerns relating to the publication ethics of a manuscript (e.g., if you believe you have encountered a case of plagiarism), you can contact the Editorial Office in confidence.

We are very grateful to all of the reviewers who have supported our journal so far. For more guidance on effective peer review, your may refer to: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12658579/.


Updated on March 31, 2026