Sign Up

About JOMI

JOMI (Journal of Medical Insight) is a surgical video journal that seeks to improve quality of medical care and education through filming and publication of surgical procedures as performed by the world’s leading surgeons.

The Review Process

Initial Internal Review

Once a video article and manuscript are submitted, JOMI’s editorial and video teams conduct an initial assessment to determine whether the submission meets basic quality and educational standards. This process includes:

  • Technical Review: Ensuring video clarity, completeness, and adherence to JOMI’s filming guidelines.
  • Manuscript Review: Checking structure, accuracy, and whether it complements the video effectively.
  • Plagiarism Screening: All manuscripts undergo plagiarism detection using specialized software to ensure originality. Submissions containing duplicated, improperly cited, or previously published material may be returned for revision or rejected.
  • Editorial Decision: If revisions are needed, authors receive feedback for improvement. Submissions that do not meet JOMI’s standards may be returned for revision or rejected at this stage.

If approved, the submission proceeds to peer review.

Peer Review

Once the internal review is complete, the Peer Review Manager selects and invites multiple experts to serve as peer reviewers for both the video and text components of the submission. JOMI follows a single-blind peer review process, where reviewers are aware of the authors’ identities, but authors do not know the reviewers’ identities. This ensures an unbiased evaluation while allowing reviewers to assess the work within the appropriate academic and clinical context.

Criteria for Peer Reviewer Selection:

  • Must be an established surgeon with expertise in the relevant surgical subspecialty.
  • Should have authored or co-authored peer-reviewed publications on the same or a closely related topic.
  • Must have no conflicts of interest related to the authors, institutions, or funding sources of the submission.
  • Should not be affiliated with the same institution or hospital as the submitting authors to maintain impartiality.
  • Preference may be given to reviewers with prior peer review experience or editorial board memberships (excluding JOMI’s editorial board members).

Peer Review Process:

Each invited reviewer evaluates the submission based on scientific rigor, educational value, technical accuracy, and clinical relevance. Reviewers are encouraged to provide constructive feedback aimed at improving the clarity, completeness, and overall impact of the article.

Once at least two independent reviews have been received, the Peer Review Manager compiles the reviewer feedback and shares it with the authors. In cases where the initial two reviews present significantly conflicting opinions, additional reviewers may be invited to ensure a balanced assessment.


Author Revisions and Response:

If revisions are required, the authors are given a chance to address reviewer concerns and improve their submission. Authors are expected to provide a detailed response to each reviewer’s comments, highlighting changes made or providing justifications for maintaining specific elements. The revised submission is then re-evaluated by the original reviewers or, if necessary, by additional experts to determine whether the article meets JOMI’s publication standards.

This structured and rigorous review process ensures that all published content maintains high educational and clinical standards, contributing to JOMI’s mission of advancing surgical education through peer-reviewed video articles.

Relevant: Peer Review Submission Form

Peer Review Steps

Step 1: Reviewer Reviews Video and Text

Reviewers utilize these text guidelines to understand the purpose of each subsection. However, if a reviewer thinks a section is too long or short and/or finds a typo, please comment.

Reviewers will watch the video article and make comments on the validity of technique or chaptering. If needed, reviewers may recommend to reject the video article.

Step 2: Reviewer Provides Response / Feedback

Based on the criteria cited in the “Responsibilities” section (worth, quality, methodological rigor, utility, and publishability), the reviewer provides comments and gives one of the four below recommendations.

  1. Accept the Article for Publication  - Move forward with printing, without changes

  2. Accept the Article with Minor Revisions - Move forward with printing, needs minor adjustments before printing

  3. Accept Only with Major Revisions - Must not be published until a major concern is addressed

  4. Reject for Publication Outright - Do not publish

Any comment may be designated “for JOMI staff only” in order to allow an honest discussion of the merits and weaknesses of the article.

Step 3: JOMI Processes Review

All reviewer comments that are intended to be passed on to the authors of the article are passed on. If adjustments are made, repeat from Step 1.

Step 4: Publication

Once the review is completed in a satisfactory manner, the article is published on the JOMI site and the authors are notified.

Responsibilities¹

Peer Reviewer Responsibilities:

  1. Value: Provide written, unbiased feedback in a timely manner on the scholarly merits and the scientific / clinical value of the work, together with the documented basis for the reviewer’s opinion.

  2. Accuracy: Indicate whether the presentation is clear, concise, and relevant. Rate the work’s composition, scientific / medical accuracy, and value from the clinical and educational perspectives.

  3. Concerns: Note any concerns, such as any violation of standard of care.

  4. Professionalism: Avoid personal comments or criticism.

  5. Confidentiality: Maintain the confidentiality of the review process; do not share, discuss with third parties, or disclose information from the article under review. Avoid contacting the author.

Operationally:

  1. Be Timely: If unable to review in a timely manner: please notify the editor immediately and provide names of potential other reviewers.

  2. Conflict of Interest: Alert the editor about any potential personal or financial conflict of interest and decline to review when a possibility of a conflict exists.

  3. Be Thoughtful: Provide a thoughtful, fair, constructive, and informative critique of the submitted work, which may include supplementary material provided to the journal by the author.

  4. Offer Judgement: Determine scientific/clinical merit, originality, and scope of the work; indicate ways to improve it; and recommend acceptance or rejection using whatever rating scale the editor deems most useful.


Article Processing Overview


¹ Derived from Council of Science Editors: https://www.councilscienceeditors.org/resource-library/editorial-policies/white-paper-on-pub