Reviewer Guidlines

Purpose of the Review

Peer review is a critical step in maintaining the scientific quality, ethical integrity, and relevance of medical literature.
These guidelines provide a structured framework for evaluating manuscripts submitted to our journals, ensuring fair, consistent, and constructive assessments across all medical science disciplines.

Objectives:

  • Assess the scientific validity and originality of submissions.

  • Ensure that articles meet ethical, methodological, and reporting standards.

  • Provide constructive feedback to help authors improve their work.

  • Support editorial decisions (Accept / Minor Revision / Major Revision / Reject).

Ethical Responsibilities of Reviewers

Confidentiality

  • Treat all manuscripts and associated data as strictly confidential.

  • Do not share or discuss with others without editorial permission.

Conflict of Interest

  • Declare any personal, academic, or financial conflicts that may bias your review.

  • If in doubt, notify the editor before proceeding.

Objectivity

  • Base comments on evidence and logic, not personal preference.

  • Avoid biased or derogatory language.

Acknowledgment of Limitations

  • Accept assignments only if you have the relevant expertise and can meet the deadline.

Timely Response

  • Accept or decline invitations promptly.

  • Submit reviews within the agreed timeframe.

Plagiarism Awareness

  • Flag any suspected plagiarism, data fabrication, or unethical practices for the editor.

Core Evaluation Criteria

Title & Abstract

  • Clear, concise, and reflective of the study content.

  • Includes main variables, population, and study design where appropriate.

  • Abstract provides an accurate summary: Background, Methods, Results, Conclusion.

Introduction

  • Demonstrates relevance to the field.

  • Provides adequate and up-to-date literature coverage.

  • Clearly states the research question, hypothesis, or study objective.

Methods

  • Appropriateness of study design and methodology.

  • Adherence to relevant EQUATOR Network reporting guidelines:

    • CONSORT for randomized trials

    • PRISMA for systematic reviews

    • STROBE for observational studies

    • CARE for case reports

  • Ethical approval and informed consent stated when required.

  • Sample size calculation or justification is provided.

  • Statistical analysis is appropriate, described in detail, and replicable.

Results

  • Data presented clearly, logically, and in alignment with methods.

  • Proper use of tables and figures with correct labelling.

  • No duplication of results in text and tables.

  • All planned analyses are reported; deviations explained.

Discussion

  • Interpretation is supported by the results.

  • Findings are compared with existing literature.

  • Limitations are openly discussed.

  • Clinical or research implications are well articulated.

References

  • Current, relevant, and credible.

  • Accurate and correctly formatted per journal style.

  • No reliance on predatory or non-indexed journals.

  • Reviewers should verify a sample of references for:

    • Accuracy of bibliographic details

    • Indexing in reputable databases (PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science)

Language & Clarity

  • Scientific tone, free from grammatical or spelling errors.

  • Logical flow of arguments.

  • Appropriate terminology for medical science readers.

General Quality Indicators

  • Originality – Novel contribution or perspective.

  • Scientific Validity – Robust methodology and appropriate analysis.

  • Clinical Relevance – Practical importance in medical science.

  • Potential Impact – Likelihood of influencing research, policy, or practice.

Reviewer Workflow

Initial Read-Through

  • Read without making detailed notes to gain a general impression.

Detailed Section-by-Section Assessment

  • Use the evaluation criteria outlined above.

Completion of Checklist(s)

  • Apply the appropriate EQUATOR Network checklist for the study type.

  • Note missing or incomplete items.

Reference Verification

  • Randomly check at least 3–5 references for accuracy, indexing, and credibility.

Structured Feedback

  • General Comments – Overall strengths and weaknesses.

  • Specific Comments – Organised by manuscript section with actionable suggestions.

Final Recommendation

  • Accept – Suitable for publication with minimal or no revision.

  • Minor Revision – Publishable after small changes.

  • Major Revision – Substantial issues must be addressed before reconsideration.

  • Reject – Unsuitable for publication due to major flaws or lack of fit.

Report Structure

When submitting your review, follow this format:

A. General Comments for the Author

  • Balanced summary of strengths and weaknesses.

  • Focus on scientific content, not language alone.

B. Specific Comments by Section

  • Numbered points for easy reference.

  • Clear, constructive suggestions for improvement.

C. Confidential Comments to the Editor

  • Ethical concerns, suspected misconduct, or significant doubts about data integrity.

  • Overall suitability for the journal.

D. Recommendation

  • Accept / Minor Revision / Major Revision / Reject.

Tone and Constructive Feedback

  • Be professional, respectful, and supportive.

  • Suggest improvements rather than only identifying problems.

  • Avoid overly harsh or vague criticism.