Reviewer Guidelines
Reviewer Guidelines
A Reviewer is an expert-typically a scholar or a knowledgeable and experienced professional in a specific field-who critically evaluates the innovations, findings, limitations, and overall quality of scientific manuscripts. Their responsibilities include assessing the accuracy, originality, and significance of the work, providing constructive feedback for improvement, and recommending whether the manuscript should be accepted for publication. Reviewers play a vital role in ensuring that published research is credible, rigorous, and valuable to the scientific community.
Reviewer Responsibilities
Confidentiality
• All manuscripts and related materials must be treated as confidential documents.
• Do not share, discuss, or disclose content with anyone outside the review process without prior approval from the editorial office.
Objectivity
• Provide fair, unbiased, and constructive evaluations.
• Avoid personal criticism and focus on the scientific content.
Expertise and Competence
• Accept review assignments only when having the sufficient expertise to assess the manuscript.
• Decline the invitation if the topic is outside the area of competence or it cannot meet the deadline.
Timeliness
• Able to submit the review within the agreed timeframe.
• Notify the editorial office immediately if delays are expected.
Ethical Considerations
Conflict of Interest
• Disclose any potential conflicts of interest (financial, institutional, personal, or collaborative relationships).
• Refrain from reviewing if a conflict could compromise when it is impartiality.
Plagiarism and Ethical Concerns
• Report any suspected plagiarism, data fabrication, duplicate submission, or ethical concerns regarding human/animal subjects.
Review comments Guidelines
General Assessment
• Evaluate the significance, originality, clarity, methodology, and relevance of the manuscript.
• Consider whether the data supports the conclusions and if the discussion is balanced and evidence-based.
Detailed Comments
• Provide clear, numbered, and specific comments addressing the manuscript’s strengths and areas for improvement.
• Separate comments intended for the authors from confidential notes to the editor.
Recommendation
• Choose an appropriate recommendation (e.g., Accept, Minor Revisions, Major Revisions, Reject).
• Justify your recommendation with evidence-based arguments.
Review Format and Submission
• Use the journal’s online submission system to complete and submit the review.
• Follow any specific formatting or structural guidelines provided in the reviewer form.
Recognition and Acknowledgment
• Reviewer’s contribution will be acknowledged through our certificates, reviewer listings, or reviewer rewards.
• Participation in peer review supports the professional development and academic service record.
Reviewer Qualifications
To ensure high-quality peer review, reviewers should meet the following qualifications:
Academic and Professional Expertise
• Hold a relevant advanced degree (typically a PhD, MD, or equivalent) in the subject area of the manuscript.
• Demonstrated expertise through recent publications in peer-reviewed journals related to the manuscript’s topic.
Research and Analytical Skills
• Ability to critically evaluate study design, methodology, data analysis, and interpretation.
• Familiarity with current developments and literature in the relevant field.
Ethical and Professional Integrity
• Adherence to ethical guidelines in research and publishing.
• No history of academic misconduct or unethical behaviour.
Reviewing Experience
• Prior experience in peer review or editorial board participation is advantageous.
• Early-career researchers with strong publication records may be considered under the mentorship of experienced reviewers.
Criteria of choosing a Reviewer
Editors and editorial staff will follow the below mentioned principles when selecting suitable reviewers
Subject Matter Relevance
• Match the reviewer’s expertise with the core subject of the manuscript.
• Use keyword matching and past relevant publications.
Publication and Citation Record
• Reviewers will be selected based on their published articles in reputable journals within the last 3-5 years on topics similar to the submission.
Independence and Objectivity
• The individual who belongs to respective manuscripts (e.g., co-authors, collaborators, same institution, recent supervisors or mentees) will not be considered.
• Reviewers will be preferred from different institutions and geographic regions to minimize bias.
Reviewer Benefits
At Medires Online we recognize that reviewers play a crucial role in maintaining the quality and integrity of scientific publishing. To appreciate their valuable contributions, we offer the following benefits to our reviewers:
Recognition and Accreditation
Acknowledgment: Public recognition through annual “Thank You to Reviewers” lists published on our website and in the journal.
Certificates of Appreciation: Downloadable certificates for each completed review to add to professional portfolios.
Reviewer Badges: Compatible digital badges will be provided, can be useful as an identity in various scientific databases for their professional development.
Priority Consideration: Partial waiver on the Article Processing Charges (APCs) for reviewers who publish with us.
Discounts: Discounts on publication fees, conferences, and affiliated events.
Early Access: Advance access to new journal issues and special collections.
