The academic quality of scientific journal manuscripts is integral to the peer review system of journals. To qualitatively enhance the review process of submitted medical manuscripts, this pilot study proposes a semi-structured review model that integrates semi-structured interviews based on the manuscript content with the traditional free-form review process. At the initial review, the associate editor should ask targeted questions to the review experts who are expected to respond openly. The findings of this pilot exploration of the semi-structured review model are summarized according to the introduction, methods, results, and discussion sections of the manuscripts. Strengthening the communication between the associate editor's initial review and the expert's peer review enhances the quality of academic review for medical papers. This approach may also serve as a pivotal safeguard against paper mills.

1. Kronick DA. Peer review in 18th-century scientific journalism. JAMA. 1990;263(10):1321-1322.    PMID: 2406469

2. Moxham N, Fyfe A. The royal society and the prehistory of peer review, 1665-1965. Hist J. 2018;61(4):863-889.

3. Bazi T. Peer review: Single-blind, double-blind, or all the way-blind? Int Urogynecol J. 2020;31(3):481-483.    DOI: 10.1007/s00192-019-04187-2    PMID: 31820012

4. Ford E. Open peer review at four STEM journals: An observational overview. F1000Res. 2015;4:6.    DOI: 10.12688/f1000research.6005.2    PMID: 25767695

5. Faggion CM Jr. Peer review blinding practices of highly ranked dental journals: Analysis and discussion. Br Dent J. 2021;231(4):219-223.    DOI: 10.1038/s41415-021-3319-y    PMID: 34446840

6. Malički M, Mehmani B. Structured peer review: Pilot results from 23 Elsevier journals. PeerJ. 2024;12:e17514.

7. Malički M. Structure peer review to make it more robust. Nature. 2024;631(8008):483.    DOI: 10.1038/d41586-024-01101-9    PMID: 38627512

8. Zhu D. [On structured peer reviewing]. Acta Editologica. 2013;25(6):135-139.

9. Adams W. Conducting semi-structured interviews. In: Newcomer KE, Hatry HP, Wholey JS, eds. Handbook of practical program evaluation. Wiley; 2015.

10. Van Damme H. Steps to writing an effective introduction. Acta Chir Belg. 2015;115:1.    PMID: 26466390

11. Fried T, Foltz C, Lendner M, Vaccaro AR. How to write an effective introduction. Clin Spine Surg. 2019;32(3):111-112.    DOI: 10.1097/BSD.0000000000000714    PMID: 30234565

12. Kiani AK, Naureen Z, Pheby D, et al. Methodology for clinical research. J Prev Med Hyg. 2022;63(2 Suppl 3):E267-E278.    DOI: 10.15167/2421-4248/jpmh2022.63.2S3.2769    PMID: 36479476

13. Bahadoran Z, Mirmiran P, Zadeh-Vakili A, Hosseinpanah F, Ghasemi A. The principles of biomedical scientific writing: Results. Int J Endocrinol Metab. 2019;17(2):e92113.

14. Docherty M, Smith R. The case for structuring the discussion of scientific papers. BMJ. 1999;318(7193):1224-1225.    DOI: 10.1136/bmj.318.7193.1224    PMID: 10231230

15. Dyer O. Major publisher retracts 43 papers, alleging fake peer review. BMJ. 2015;350:h1783.    DOI: 10.1136/bmj.h1783    PMID: 25832507

16. Van NR. How big is science's fake-paper problem? Nature. 2023;623(7987):466-467.    DOI: 10.1038/d41586-023-03464-x    PMID: 37949983

17. Richardson RAK, Hong SS, Byrne JA, Stoeger T, Amaral LAN. The entities enabling scientific fraud at scale are large, resilient, and growing rapidly. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2025;122(32):e2420092122.    DOI: 10.1073/pnas.2420092122    PMID: 40758886

18. Abalkina A. Publication and collaboration anomalies in academic papers originating from a paper mill: Evidence from a Russia-based paper mill. Learn Publ. 2023;36(4):689-702.

19. Ro C, Leeming J. Authorship for sale: Nature investigates how paper mills work. Nature. 2025;642(8068):823-826.    DOI: 10.1038/d41586-025-01824-3    PMID: 40494985

20. Zou Q. [Characteristics and recognitions of medical ghostwriting papers]. Chin J Sci Tech Period. 2020;31(12):1431-1435.

21. Nosek BA, Alter G, Banks GC, et al. Scientific standards. Promoting an open research culture. Science. 2015;26;348(6242):1422-1425.

22. Menon V. Serving as a handling editor? Thirteen simple messages for early-career editors. Indian J Psychol Med. 2023;45(5):456-458.    DOI: 10.1177/02537176231185934    PMID: 37772140

23. Budrikis Z. What it's like to be a Reviews editor. Springer Nature. Accessed November 12, 2025. https://communities.springernature.com/posts/what-it-s-like-to-be-a-reviews-editor

24. Crous CJ. Could disruptive technologies also reform academia? Web Ecol. 2017;17(2):47-50.