Peer Review Process

In ARC: Journal of AI in Clinical Practice, a rigorous  double-blind peer-review process is applied to all submitted manuscripts. Peer review helps ensure that the research we publish is useful, reliable, and relevant to clinicians and researchers working with AI in real-world healthcare settings.

Our goal is not only to identify errors, but also to support authors in improving their work and contributing meaningfully to the field.

Our journal strictly follows the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) guidelines for the peer review process.

Peer review is an evaluation conducted by subject-matter experts familiar with the manuscript’s topic. Reviewers assess submissions based on:

• Accuracy and relevance of the research question.
• Appropriateness of the methodologies used.
• Strength, transparency, and validity of the results.
• Clinical value and applicability of the findings.
• Ethical and responsible reporting practices.

Reviewers provide detailed written feedback and recommendations, which assist editors in determining whether a manuscript should be accepted, revised, or rejected.

• Initial Editorial Check

Upon submission, the editorial team conducts an initial screening to ensure the manuscript fits the journal’s scope and meets basic submission requirements.

• Double-Blind Review

Manuscripts that pass the initial check are sent to two or more expert reviewers. Both reviewers and authors remain anonymous throughout the review process.

• Reviewer Feedback

Reviewers provide detailed comments and constructive suggestions to help authors improve the clarity, rigor, and impact of their work.

• Editorial Decision

Based on reviewer feedback and editorial evaluation, one of the following decisions is made:

• Accept
• Request Minor Revision
• Request Major Revision
• Reject

• Revision and Resubmission

When revisions are requested, authors are asked to address reviewer comments in detail and resubmit the revised manuscript for further evaluation.

The double-blind peer review model minimizes bias by ensuring that neither authors nor reviewers know each other’s identities. This supports fair, objective, and evidence-based assessment of all submissions.

ARC Journal of AI in Clinical Practice strives to conduct the peer-review process as efficiently as possible. While timelines may vary depending on reviewer availability and the subject area, the review time is typically  within 6–7 weeks from the date of submission.

We understand the importance of timely feedback and work closely with reviewers to ensure prompt yet thorough evaluations without compromising the quality and integrity of the review process.

ARC is committed to transparency, fairness, and quality in peer review. Through collaboration between reviewers and editors, we aim to help authors produce clear, trustworthy research that advances knowledge in AI-driven clinical practice.