This is the official journal for multidisciplinary clinical and health sciences and a leading platform that bridges multidisciplinary clinical science with evidence-based practice to advance healthcare quality, safety, and patient outcomes.
Nexus of Integrated Clinical Science (NICS) is fundamentally committed to a rigorous, transparent, and objective peer-review process. By enforcing strict methodological validation and clinical relevance, the journal ensures the publication of high-quality research that directly impacts clinical practice and healthcare outcomes.
Upon submission, all manuscripts undergo an initial internal assessment by the Editorial Office to evaluate:
Core alignment with the journal’s scope, focusing on clinical utility, diagnostic advancements, or predictive modeling.
Compliance with international reporting frameworks (e.g., TRIPOD, STROBE, CONSORT).
Mandatory similarity screening using professional plagiarism detection software.
Manuscripts that fail to meet these baseline quality, ethical, or scope requirements will be desk-rejected or returned to the authors for pre-review modification.
NICS employs a strict Double-Blind Peer Review system. The identities of both the authors and the reviewers are completely concealed throughout the evaluation process to eliminate geographic, institutional, or personal bias.
Manuscripts passing initial screening are assigned to a handling Section Editor, who recruits a minimum of two independent external experts in the specific field. For multidisciplinary studies, complex clinical audits, or papers involving advanced diagnostic imaging technology, additional specialized reviewers (e.g., imaging physicists or biostatisticians) may be invited to evaluate technical components.
NICS is dedicated to an efficient and timely review workflow. The standard period from initial submission to the first editorial decision is approximately 5 to 6 weeks. Timelines may fluctuate depending on manuscript complexity, reviewer availability, or the need for subsequent rounds of evaluation.
Based on the peer-review reports and the consensus of the editorial board, the handling editor will formulate a recommendation. The final publishing authority rests exclusively with the Editor-in-Chief. Available decisions include:
Accept Unchanged: The manuscript is structurally and scientifically sound and moves to production.
Minor Revision: Minor textual, stylistic, or clarifying changes are required; external re-review is typically bypassed.
Major Revision: Significant methodological, data, or reporting gaps must be addressed. The revised paper will undergo a full second round of review, usually by the original evaluators.
Reject: The manuscript possesses fundamental scientific flaws, lacks clinical relevance, or exhibits ethical non-compliance.
Reviewers evaluate submissions against standard academic rubrics, with specific emphasis tailored to NICS’s core domains:
Scientific Rigor: Methodological transparency, appropriate statistical controls, and reproducible workflows.
Clinical & Practical Impact: Direct relevance to patient care, clinical decision-making, or diagnostic workflows.
Clinical Audits & Case Reviews: Methodological transparency, clarity of clinical endpoints, and practical applicability to healthcare systems.
Diagnostic Imaging Studies: Technical image quality, diagnostic validity, appropriate gold-standard comparisons, and structural transparency.
Prediction Models: Strict adherence to the TRIPOD reporting standards, model calibration, and validation integrity.
All submitted manuscripts are handled as strictly confidential, privileged documents.
Reviewers must disclose any potential personal, financial, or professional conflicts of interest prior to accepting the invitation.
AI Restriction: Reviewers are strictly prohibited from uploading any part of a submitted manuscript, figures, or metadata into generative artificial intelligence (AI) tools or large language models (LLMs). Utilizing AI tools for manuscript evaluation, translation, or critique generation compromises author confidentiality and violates international intellectual property standards.
Authors retain the right to appeal a formal rejection if they can demonstrate that the decision resulted from a clear factual misunderstanding of the science by the editorial team or reviewers.
To initiate an appeal, authors must submit a formal, evidence-based, point-by-point rebuttal to the Editorial Office within 30 days of the decision.
Appeals will be independently arbitrated by the Editor-in-Chief or an unbiased editorial board member. NICS permits only one appeal per submission, and the resulting decision is final.