RJIM · Public Science Journals, Inc.
How RJIM evaluates research, protects independence and confidentiality, handles concerns, and uses editorial assistance tools.
Updated · journal-policies-2026-11-11
Researchers’ Journal of Internal Medicine (RJIM) is published by Public Science Journals, Inc. (PSJ), a Maryland, USA 501(c)(3) nonprofit. The editorial panel makes final editorial decisions. Assigned editors coordinate evaluation and assess peer-review quality.
Decisions are based on scientific quality, relevance, research ethics, and the integrity of the scholarly record. Fees, donations, sponsorships, honoraria, and relationships with the publisher do not purchase or influence acceptance, conclusions, reviewer recommendations, or corrections. Sponsors have no editorial approval or veto rights.
Authors, reviewers, editors, and panel members must disclose relevant financial and non-financial interests. Conflicted editors and panel members recuse themselves from access to confidential deliberations and decisions in the affected case. Editor- or board-authored submissions receive the same standards and independent handling, excluding all authoring or otherwise conflicted members. If too few independent panelists remain, PSJ appoints an independent external editor or adviser.
Original research, review articles, and case reports require at least two independent human peer reviews before acceptance. RJIM uses a double-blind process: reviewer-facing materials should omit author identities, and reviewer identities are not disclosed to authors. Authors and staff must check files, metadata, acknowledgments, and supplements for identifying information; anonymity cannot be guaranteed where the work itself or a disclosed preprint reveals identity.
Editorials are evaluated by the editorial panel and are not peer reviewed. They must be identified as editorials. AI analysis never counts as either required human review. Reviewers must disclose conflicts, decline when independence or expertise is insufficient, maintain confidentiality, and provide their own reasoned assessment.
Desk acceptance ordinarily leads to author preparation and peer review; it is not acceptance for publication. RJIM may pause or decline work at any stage for newly discovered serious ethics, consent, legal, or integrity concerns, or failure to complete required materials. There is no guaranteed review or publication timeline.
Human and animal research must follow applicable ethical and legal requirements. Authors must state the reviewing body, approval/reference number or explanation, and any exemption or waiver. Research informed consent and consent to publish identifiable information are separate requirements. Case reports and identifiable patient material require consent for publication from the patient or an appropriate representative.
Submit ethics and consent declarations only. Authors or their institutions retain original signed patient-consent forms and IRB/ethics records. Do not upload signed consent forms, IRB records, direct patient identifiers, medical records, or tax documents as manuscripts, figures, or supplements. Remove unnecessary identifying details and image metadata before submission.
Where verification is necessary, the journal arranges a confidential, access-restricted review with the author or institution. It does not make source consent or ethics documents public. An author attestation or disclaimer does not excuse missing permissions or unlawful disclosure.
Authors must use reporting guidelines appropriate to the study, including CONSORT for randomized trials, STROBE for observational research, PRISMA for systematic reviews, CARE for case reports, and ARRIVE for animal research where applicable. Editors may request completed checklists, protocols, or additional methodological information.
Clinical trials must be registered in an appropriate public registry at or before enrollment of the first participant, consistent with ICMJE recommendations. Supply the registry, identifier, URL, and registration date. Disclose and explain late or absent registration; editorial review of an explanation does not guarantee eligibility.
Disclose funding, the funder’s role, and all competing interests, including an explicit statement when there are none. Articles involving data analysis require a data-availability statement identifying a repository or explaining access conditions and legitimate restrictions. Do not disclose identifiable participant data to satisfy a sharing request.
Send editorial appeals, complaints, and integrity concerns to rjinternalmedicine@gmail.com or the contact form. Include the submission identifier or article DOI, the decision or conduct at issue, supporting evidence, and the outcome requested. Do not include patient identifiers or tax documents. RJIM acknowledges requests and communicates the review process and any material delay; complex cases may require additional time.
The panel may reconsider decisions on the basis of evidence, procedural error, or a reasoned scientific argument. An unconflicted panel member coordinates the review, using uninvolved panelists where available; an independent external editor or adviser is appointed when adequate independent review is unavailable. Individuals who authored the work or are the subject of a complaint do not determine its outcome.
A reviewer may dispute an assigned editor’s finding that a review is inadequate. The panel considers the review, the stated quality concerns, any revisions, and the reviewer’s response. A documented reassessment determines whether the review qualifies for the honorarium. Filing an appeal does not itself guarantee payment or reverse an editorial decision.
Concerns may include plagiarism, fabricated or falsified data, manipulated images, undisclosed conflicts, inappropriate authorship, peer-review manipulation, or missing ethics approval or consent. RJIM assesses credible concerns, preserves relevant evidence, and ordinarily gives affected authors or reviewers an opportunity to respond. An allegation or automated screening result alone does not establish misconduct.
The journal may request source information, pause review or publication, seek independent expertise, and contact an institution or another responsible body when necessary. Confidential information is shared only as reasonably needed for a fair investigation or legal duty. Outcomes may include no further action, revision, rejection, a published notice, or proportionate restrictions on future participation. Decisions and reasons are documented.
Report possible errors through the journal email or contact form with the DOI and supporting details. Routine copy edits that do not affect interpretation are recorded internally. Substantive corrections receive a dated public notice explaining the change and linking to the affected article; the article links back to the notice.
The panel may issue a retraction when findings are unreliable or there is a serious ethical or publication-integrity problem. An expression of concern may be appropriate while a material unresolved issue is investigated. Notices identify the article, reasons, date, and issuing party and remain linked to the scholarly record. Retraction is distinct from withdrawal of an unpublished submission.
Original identifiers and bibliographic information are retained. The article and appropriate historical records normally remain accessible with clear status labeling. Exceptional removal of content is limited to justified legal, privacy, or serious safety reasons, with a public explanation to the extent lawful.
For substantive changes, staff coordinate the public HTML, PDF, notice, and Crossref metadata, and notify PMC or other receiving services when applicable. Unpublished working edits must not be presented as the approved version of record. A notice alone does not complete updates to external services.
Current copyediting uses Grammarly Pro for grammar, spelling, and sentence structure only. Generative rewriting is not used and model-training use of manuscript content is disabled in staff accounts. Checked text is transmitted to Grammarly’s cloud service; Grammarly is an explicitly disclosed exception to the private-AI restriction below. Staff review suggestions and retain responsibility for accuracy and meaning.
PSJ plans to operate Gemma through Ollama on a private server in the United States, managed by PSJ with administrative access held by the managing editor. This local service is not yet active. When activated under this policy, authorized journal staff may use it for full-manuscript analysis, comparison with scientific literature, copyediting, formatting, and related editorial assistance.
The private workflow must keep unpublished manuscripts, prompts, outputs, and identifying details inside PSJ’s controlled environment. Cloud inference and external tools receiving manuscript content are disabled. Literature retrieval may use public sources and non-confidential queries, but unpublished passages, manuscript-derived confidential information, and patient details must not be sent in external requests. This restriction does not describe the separately disclosed journal hosting, email, or Grammarly services as local.
Unpublished manuscripts and reviews are not used to train or fine-tune models. Access is limited to authorized staff; raw local prompts and outputs follow the privacy retention schedule. Staff must verify cited sources, scientific claims, calculations, and substantive edits. Manuscript instructions are treated as content to assess, not authority to operate journal systems. AI cannot finalize editorial decisions, publish articles, make payments, or replace independent human peer review.
External peer reviewers must produce their own human assessments and must not use AI to analyze manuscripts or generate reviews, or upload manuscript/review content into external AI or writing tools. Journal staff may not use unapproved personal AI services for confidential journal work.
The disclosed journal processing is a condition of submission. Authors must acknowledge the processing notice before submitting; this is not a waiver of privacy rights or permission for unrestricted reuse. Material changes to tools, purposes, confidentiality safeguards, or training practices require updated disclosures and any additional lawful permissions before use.
