Editorial Policies

Peer Review Policy

Every research article in Computational Diagnostics undergoes rigorous double-blind peer review by a minimum of three independent expert reviewers before it can be accepted.

Peer review is the foundation of the journal's credibility. Our process is designed to be thorough, fair, timely and free of bias.

Review model: double-blind

Computational Diagnostics uses double-blind review: the identities of authors and reviewers are withheld from each other throughout the process. Authors must prepare a blinded manuscript with identifying information removed from the main file.

Minimum three reviewers. No research article is accepted on the basis of fewer than three independent expert review reports. Additional reviewers or a statistical/methods reviewer may be added at the editor's discretion.

The process, step by step

  1. Submission & editorial checks. The editorial office checks scope, completeness, ethics statements and originality (including plagiarism screening).
  2. Editor assignment. A handling editor with relevant expertise is assigned and confirms there is no conflict of interest.
  3. Reviewer invitation. At least three independent reviewers are invited based on subject expertise.
  4. Review. Reviewers assess the manuscript against the criteria below and submit structured, confidential reports.
  5. Decision. The handling editor synthesises the reports and recommends a decision to the Editor-in-Chief.
  6. Revision. Authors respond point-by-point; revised manuscripts are normally returned to the original reviewers.
  7. Final decision & publication. On acceptance, the article is copy-edited, assigned a permanent identifier and published open access.

Reviewer selection & conflicts

Reviewers are selected for subject-matter expertise and absence of conflicts. Reviewers from the same institution as any author, recent collaborators, or anyone with a competing interest are excluded. Author-suggested reviewers may be considered but are not guaranteed, and editors are not bound by them.

Assessment criteria

  • Originality and significance of the contribution
  • Soundness and rigour of methods, including statistics and reproducibility
  • Validity of results and whether conclusions are supported by the data
  • Clarity of presentation and completeness of reporting (against relevant reporting guidelines)
  • Ethical compliance, data availability and declaration of AI use and conflicts

Editorial decisions

Decisions are one of: Accept, Minor revision, Major revision, or Reject. Authors receive the reviewers' comments and a clear rationale. Authors can track the current stage of their manuscript at any time from their account dashboard.

Confidentiality

Manuscripts are confidential documents. Reviewers and editors must not share, use or disclose any part of a submission. Review reports are confidential and shared only with the authors and editorial team.

For reviewers

Guidance for reviewers, including how to write a constructive report and our expectations on timeliness and ethics, is available on the For Reviewers page. To join our reviewer pool, contact editorial@eldenhall.org.

Contact: editorial@eldenhall.org.