The Society of Individualized Medicine & Therapies (SOIMT) Journal is committed to publishing high-quality, scientifically rigorous, ethically conducted, and clinically relevant research that advances individualized medicine, precision diagnostics, therapeutic innovation, and evidence-informed patient care.
The editorial review process exists to ensure that every published manuscript meets the highest standards of scientific integrity, methodological quality, transparency, and clinical significance while maintaining fairness, confidentiality, and editorial independence.
SOIMT follows the principles of:
Scientific integrity
Editorial independence
Transparency
Ethical publishing
Evidence-based medicine
Respectful scientific discourse
Patient-centered research
Continuous quality improvement
Editorial decisions are based solely upon scientific merit and clinical relevance and are never influenced by:
Financial interests
Commercial sponsorship
Institutional affiliation
Political viewpoints
Personal relationships
Race
Gender
National origin
Religion
Professional status
The journal considers manuscripts in areas including:
Individualized Medicine
Precision Medicine
Personalized Therapeutics
Systems Biology
Clinical Decision Support
Artificial Intelligence in Medicine
Digital Health
Biomarkers
Autonomic Medicine
Functional Medicine
Integrative Medicine
Preventive Medicine
Translational Research
Population Health
Medical Devices
Medical Technology
Public Health
Clinical Practice Guidelines
Health Outcomes Research
Every submission undergoes an initial screening by the Editor-in-Chief or a designated Associate Editor.
This review determines:
Relevance to the journal
Originality
Scientific quality
Ethical compliance
Completeness of submission
Compliance with author guidelines
Appropriate reporting standards
Language clarity
Manuscripts may be returned without external review ("desk rejection") if they:
Fall outside the journal scope
Demonstrate insufficient scientific quality
Lack originality
Present significant ethical concerns
Contain major methodological flaws
Are incomplete
Fail plagiarism screening
All manuscripts undergo plagiarism detection prior to peer review.
The editorial office evaluates:
Text similarity
Duplicate publication
Self-plagiarism
Image manipulation
Data duplication
Suspected misconduct will be investigated according to recognized publication ethics standards.
SOIMT uses a double-blind peer review process whenever practical.
Authors do not know reviewer identities.
Reviewers do not know author identities.
Editorial staff remove identifying information before peer review whenever feasible.
Each research manuscript is evaluated by at least two independent subject matter experts.
Reviewers are selected based upon:
Scientific expertise
Clinical experience
Publication history
Methodological knowledge
Absence of conflicts of interest
Additional reviewers or statistical reviewers may be appointed when appropriate.
Reviewers are expected to:
Maintain confidentiality
Declare conflicts of interest
Provide objective, constructive feedback
Evaluate scientific validity
Assess methodology
Review statistical analyses
Evaluate clinical relevance
Assess ethical compliance
Recommend improvements
Submit reviews within the requested timeframe
Reviewers must not:
Share manuscripts
Use unpublished information
Contact authors directly
Allow personal bias to influence recommendations
Delay reviews for competitive advantage
Recommend citations solely to increase their own citation metrics.
Reviewers assess:
Originality
Innovation
Importance
Contribution to the field
Research question
Methodology
Sample selection
Controls
Statistical methods
Bias reduction
Applicability
Patient impact
Translation into practice
Healthcare value
Clarity
Organization
Tables
Figures
References
Appropriate reporting guidelines (CONSORT, PRISMA, STROBE, CARE, etc.)
IRB approval
Informed consent
Trial registration
Animal welfare
Data integrity
Conflict disclosures
After peer review, manuscripts receive one of the following decisions:
Accept
Minor Revision
Major Revision
Reject with Invitation to Resubmit
Reject
Editorial decisions consider:
Reviewer recommendations
Scientific merit
Editorial judgment
Clinical importance
Journal priorities
The Editor-in-Chief retains final authority for publication decisions.
Authors should submit:
A revised manuscript
A detailed point-by-point response
Marked changes
Responses should explain:
Changes made
Supporting evidence
Reasons for disagreement when applicable
Revised manuscripts may undergo additional peer review.
Studies involving complex analyses may undergo independent statistical review.
Statistical reviewers evaluate:
Study design
Power calculations
Statistical methods
Data interpretation
Reproducibility
Research involving human participants must include:
Institutional Review Board approval
Ethics committee approval when applicable
Informed consent
Compliance with the Declaration of Helsinki
Animal research must comply with internationally accepted welfare standards.
Clinical trials should be prospectively registered before participant enrollment whenever applicable.
Authors, reviewers, and editors must disclose all relevant financial, professional, institutional, or personal relationships that could influence the review or publication process.
Editors with a conflict of interest will recuse themselves from handling the manuscript.
Editorial decisions are independent of:
Advertisers
Sponsors
Industry partners
Society leadership
Funding organizations
Financial support shall never influence acceptance or rejection.
Authors must disclose the use of artificial intelligence tools in manuscript preparation.
AI technologies may assist with language editing or formatting but must not be listed as authors.
Authors remain fully responsible for:
Accuracy
Originality
Data integrity
Scientific conclusions
Citations
Editorial staff may use AI-assisted tools to support plagiarism detection, language review, and administrative workflows. Final editorial decisions are made exclusively by human editors.
The journal investigates allegations involving:
Fabrication
Falsification
Plagiarism
Duplicate publication
Image manipulation
Citation manipulation
Undisclosed conflicts
Ethical misconduct
Confirmed violations may result in:
Rejection
Retraction
Published corrections
Expressions of concern
Notification of institutions or funding agencies when appropriate.
Authors may appeal editorial decisions by submitting a written explanation with supporting evidence.
Appeals are reviewed by the Editor-in-Chief and, when appropriate, an independent editorial committee.
Submission of an appeal does not guarantee reconsideration.
SOIMT supports scientific dialogue after publication.
Readers may submit:
Letters to the Editor
Corrections
Requests for clarification
Concerns regarding scientific integrity
Verified errors will be corrected through:
Errata
Corrigenda
Expressions of concern
Retractions when necessary
All submitted manuscripts are confidential documents.
Editors and reviewers shall not disclose:
Manuscript content
Author identities
Reviewer identities
Editorial discussions
Information obtained during review may not be used for personal or professional advantage.
SOIMT expects all participants to uphold the highest standards of ethical publishing and aligns its editorial practices with internationally recognized guidance from COPE and the ICMJE. Editorial policies will be reviewed periodically to ensure continued compliance with evolving best practices in biomedical publishing.
This Editorial Review Policy will be reviewed annually by the Editorial Board and updated as necessary to reflect advancements in scientific publishing, research ethics, and editorial best practices.
Copyrights 202X | Your Brand™ | Terms & Conditions | Privacy Policy