top of page

                                                               Reviewers Guidelines


 In publication process of an article reviewing has an important role as it helps an editor in making decision on an article and also enables the author to improve the manuscript. Reviewers should ensure that the manuscript is within their area of expertise and they can dedicate the appropriate time to review of the manuscript.


Manuscripts are confidential materials given to a reviewer in trust for the sole purpose of critical evaluation. Reviewers should ensure that the review processes is confidential. Details of the manuscript and the review process should remain confidential during and after the review process.


Conflict of Interest

Conflict of interest exists when there is a divergence between an individual’s private interests (competing interests) and his or her responsibilities to scientific and publishing activities. Reviewers should declare their conflicts of interest and recuse themselves from the peer-review process if a conflict exists.



The copying of  someone else’s work or ideas and using them for your own work. Using information obtained during the peer-review process for their own or any other person’s or organization’s advantage, or to disadvantage or discredit others is unethical for reviewers.



Reviewers should not be influenced by the origin of the manuscript, religious, political or cultural viewpoint of the author or gender, race, ethnicity or citizenry of the author. Reviews should be honest and objective.


Review reports

while evaluating manuscript reviewer shoul emphasize on the originality, quality of work, presentation, depth of research, contribution to the field. Reviewers should not rewrite the manuscript; however necessary corrections and suggestions for improvements should be made. Reviewer should also focus on that the author have followed the instruction for authors, editorial policies and publication ethics and followed journal’s reporting guidelines.

Time Bound

Reviewers should review and return manuscripts in a timely manner.



Reviewers’ recommendation should be either:

• Accept

• Requires minor corrections

• Requires moderate revision

• Requires major revision

• Not suitable for the journal. Submit to another publication such as (suggest a journal):

• Reject


More of the guidline can seen on below links:

• P.I.E. Guidelines for Reviewers

• COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers

• ICMJE - Responsibilities in the Submission and Peer-Review Process

• WAME - Conflict of Interest in Peer-Reviewed Medical Journals

Peer Review Process:

The articles submitted to “International Journal of Medical Laboratory Research (IJMLR)” will be reviewed by reviewer. Once an article is submitted to “International Journal of Medical Laboratory Research (IJMLR) ”, it is  sent to reviewers who will give the necessary recommendations/suggestions according to which the article is published unaltered or is sent back to the author for corrections/revise as advised by the reviewer, or rejected. The author is informed regarding the same. Once the article is fit for publication in IJMLR journal then it will published in  journal. The peer review process is blinded, i.e., the reviewers do not know who the authors of the Research articles are and the authors do not have access to the information of who the peer reviewers.


Receiving a peer review invitation

When you receive a review invitation, you should consider whether you have sufficient expertise in the article’s subject area. You should also consider if you can complete the review by the deadline provided in the review invitation.

  • If the answer to either of those questions is “no,” you should promptly decline the invitation. Suggestions of other potential reviewers are always appreciated.

  • If you decide to accept the invitation, follow the instructions in the email to signal your acceptance. You will then receive information on how to access the article and conduct your review.


Submitting Reviewer comments

Once you have accepted the review invitation, you will be given access to the article. You should evaluate the article with the following questions in mind:

  • Is the study well designed and well executed?

  • Is the existing body of relevant work acknowledged?

  • Are the results interpreted and reported correctly? Have all other possible interpretations been duly considered?

  • Are the results overly preliminary or speculative?

  • Does the research contribute to the body of scientific knowledge in the field?

  • Is the article appropriate for this publication?

  • Is the article written in clear, concise language?

Follow the publication’s instructions for submitting feedback, suggestions, and a recommended decision. Remember that your commentary should always be thorough and professional.

bottom of page