Reviewers Guideline
Peer review is a key part of publishing an article. It supports the editor’s decision-making and gives the author an opportunity to improve the manuscript. The Dijlah Journal of Medical Sciences (DJMS) uses a single-anonymized peer review system. Before agreeing to review a manuscript, reviewers should confirm that it falls within their expertise and that they have enough time to assess it critically.
Conflict of Interest
According to the World Association of Medical Editors (WAME), “Conflict of interest (COI) exists when an individual’s private interests (competing interests) diverge from their responsibilities to scientific and publishing activities, such that a reasonable observer might question whether those competing interests influenced the individual’s behavior or judgment.” Consistent with this definition, the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) requires reviewers to disclose relationships and activities that could bias their assessment of a manuscript and to withdraw from peer review when a conflict exists.
Confidentiality
Manuscripts are confidential documents entrusted to reviewers solely for critical evaluation. Reviewers must protect the confidentiality of both the manuscript and the review process, during the review and afterward. The Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) advises reviewers to respect peer-review confidentiality and not use information gained through the process to benefit themselves or anyone else, or to disadvantage or discredit others. If a reviewer asks a colleague for help with a review, that colleague’s contribution should be acknowledged in the written comments sent to the editor. The reviewer remains responsible for keeping the manuscript confidential as described above, which may mean not uploading it to software or other AI technologies when confidentiality cannot be guaranteed. Before using AI to assist with a review, reviewers must obtain permission from the journal. They should also keep in mind that AI may produce authoritative-sounding material that is inaccurate, incomplete, or biased.
Fairness
Reviews should remain honest and objective, without being shaped by the manuscript’s origin or by the author’s religious, political, or cultural views, gender, race, ethnicity, or citizenry.
Review Reports
When assessing a manuscript, reviewers should consider its originality, contribution to the field, technical quality, clarity of presentation, and depth of research. They should also check whether the author(s) have followed the instructions for authors, editorial policies, and publication ethics. A review should be accurate, objective, constructive, and clear. Comments about the manuscript’s content should be supported by facts and reasoned arguments. Reviewers are not expected to rewrite the manuscript, but they should identify necessary corrections and offer suggestions for improvement.
Timeliness
Reviewers should accept a manuscript only when they are confident they can devote enough time to assessing it. Once they agree to review, they should complete the work and return the manuscript promptly.
Recommendations
A reviewer’s recommendation should be one of the following: 1. Accept, 2. Requires minor corrections, 3. Requires major revision, or 4. Reject. It should be supported by constructive arguments and facts drawn from the manuscript’s content. Basic training for reviewer tasks, along with a step-by-step guide to reviewing a manuscript, is available on the journal’s website.
Resources
For additional guidance, reviewers may consult COPE’s Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers, the ICMJE guidelines on Responsibilities in the Submission and Peer-Review Process, and WAME’s guidelines on Conflict of Interest in Peer-Reviewed Medical Journals.
- https://publicationethics.org/guidance/guideline/ethical-guidelines-peer-reviewers
- https://wame.org/conflict-of-interest-in-peer-reviewed-medical-journals
