Intermountain Journal of Translational Medicine utilizes a double-blind peer review system. In double-blind peer review the identities of both authors and reviewers are kept confidential. Only the managing Editor is aware of the identities both parties. 

Peer Review Process

Submissions are initially assigned to, and evaluated by, an Editor. In the case of special issues, all submissions are evaluated by the Guest Editor. If the manuscript meets the criteria for submission, peer reviewers are invited. Authors are encouraged to suggest peer reviewers, however, invitation to review is at the discretion of the managing editor. At a minimum, two completed reviews are required to advance through peer review. Intermountain Journal of Translational Medicine makes use of internal reviewers as well as traditional editor-invited reviewers. This allows us to maintain a high standard for reviews as well as increase the efficiency of the editorial process. Upon receipt of at least two completed reviews, the managing editor will assess the comments, allow the authors one or more rounds of revisions if required, and decide to accept or reject the manuscript. Prior to this final decision, manuscripts may evaluated by the editorial board and the editors-in-chief for suitability and quality.

Abstract Review Process

Stand-alone symposium abstracts published by Intermountain Journal of Translational Medicine follow a slightly modified editorial and peer-review process. Abstracts are pre-selected by the Editors-in-Chief in conjunction with symposium organizers. These abstracts are then passed on to Editors who manage the formal peer-review process. In the case that abstracts have already been reviewed as part of a poster/abstract competition, only one additional review is required to satisfy the journal's peer review policy. Abstracts are reviewed as-is and no revisions are allowed. If the reviewer(s) recommend acceptance, abstracts are then published in supplemental issues corresponding to the symposium at which they were presented. 

Transparency Statement

Any conflicts of interest identified during the review and/or editorial process will be detailed in a transparency statement published alongside the final article. 

Responding to Peer Review

Upon receiving comments from reviewers, you will be given 2 weeks to respond. Additional time is available by request. Responses should be returned in the form of a structured letter addressing each comment individually and referencing specific changes to the manuscript. Additionally, when resubmitting the manuscript with revisions, please indicate any changes by either tracking changes, highlighting, or coloring the modified text.

Student Editors and Peer Reviewers

In order to develop the next generation academics, Intermountain Journal of Translational Medicine encourages the involvement of students at all levels of the publication process. Students are carefully vetted prior to acceptance and are required to complete training through Elsevier’s Editor Essentials and/or Certified Peer Review Course, depending on their role.  Additionally, we hold regular workshops to ensure continued education and high editorial standards.