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 submitted manuscripts are subject to a peer review process. The purpose of peer review is to assist the Editorial Board in making editorial decisions and through the editorial communication with the author it may also assist the author in improving the manuscript.

A manuscript goes through the peer review process - Double-blind peer-review. Double-blind peer review means that reviewers are unaware of the identity of the authors, and authors are also unaware of the identity of reviewers. There are at least two reviewers.

The choice of reviewers is at the discretion of the Editorial Board. The reviewers must be knowledgeable about the subject area of the manuscript; they must not be from the authors' own institution and they should not have recent joint publications with any of the authors.

In the main review phase, the Editor sends submitted manuscripts to the two of reviewers’ experts in the field. The reviewers’ evaluation form contains a checklist in order to help reviewers cover all aspects that can decide the fate of a submission. In the final section of the evaluation form, the reviewers must include observations and suggestions aimed at improving the submitted manuscript; these are sent to authors, without the names of the reviewers.

All of the reviewers of a manuscript remain anonymous to the authors before, during and after the evaluation process and the authors remain anonymous to reviewers until the end of the review procedure.

All of the reviewers of a manuscript act independently and they are not aware of each other’s identities. If the decisions of the two reviewers are not the same (accept/reject), the Editorial Board may assign additional reviewers.

During the review process, the Editorial Board may require authors to provide additional information (including raw data) if they are necessary for the evaluation of the scholarly merit of the manuscript. These materials shall be kept confidential and must not be used for personal gain.

The editorial team shall ensure reasonable quality control for the reviews. With respect to reviewers whose reviews are convincingly questioned by authors, special attention will be paid to ensure that the reviews are objective and high in academic standard. When there is any doubt with regard to the objectivity of the reviews or quality of the review, additional reviewers will be assigned.

Members of the editorial team/board/guest editors are permitted to submit their own papers to the journal. In cases where an author is associated with the journal, they will be removed from all editorial tasks for that paper and another member of the team will be assigned responsibility for overseeing peer review.


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