Reviewer Guidelines

Thank you for contributing to the peer review process. Your expertise ensures the quality and integrity of published medical research. These guidelines outline expectations, responsibilities, and best practices for A‑JMRHS reviewers.

Reviewer Responsibilities

Provide objective, unbiased evaluation based on scientific merit.
Assess originality, methodology, significance, clarity, and ethical standards.
Maintain strict confidentiality of all manuscripts and reviewer comments.
Complete reviews within 14 days (extensions available upon request).
Declare conflicts of interest before accepting assignments.

Acceptance Criteria

Review manuscripts for:

Originality: Does the work present new findings or insights?
Scientific validity: Are methods sound, data reliable, and conclusions justified?
Significance: Does it advance medical knowledge or practice?
Clarity: Is the manuscript well-written and logically structured?
Ethics: Appropriate approvals, consent, and reporting standards followed?

Conflicts of Interest

Decline review if you have:

Worked with authors in past 3 years (co-authored, funded, supervised).
Personal or financial relationships with authors/institutions.
Competing interests (personal beliefs, intellectual conflicts).
Recent review of same/similar work elsewhere.

Review Process

Accept invitation → Access manuscript via secure link.
Download Reviewer Form and complete structured evaluation.
Provide detailed comments (major/minor issues, confidential editor notes).
Recommend decision: Accept/Minor revision/Major revision/Reject.
Submit via system or email to editorajmrhs@gmail.com within deadline.

Writing Constructive Reviews

What to include:

text

Major Comments (affecting acceptance):

Methodological flaws/data concerns
Invalid conclusions/gaps in logic
Ethical issues or missing approvals

Minor Comments (language/formatting):

Clarity improvements
Reference updates
Figure/table suggestions

Tone guidance: Be specific, constructive, and professional. Focus on science, not style preferences.

Ethical Review Checklist

Issue	Check	Action
Ethics approval stated?	☐	Flag if missing
Informed consent obtained?	☐	Request documentation
Patient data anonymized?	☐	Request redaction
Animal studies ARRIVE compliant?	☐	Request clarification
Clinical trials registered?	☐	Verify registry
Conflicts declared?	☐	Verify completeness
Plagiarism concerns?	☐	Report to editor

Decision Recommendations

Accept: Ready for publication with minor editorial changes.
Minor Revision: Addressable issues; re-review optional.
Major Revision: Significant methodological/content changes; re-review required.
Reject: Fundamental flaws making publication unsuitable.

Confidentiality

Treat manuscripts as privileged, confidential documents.
Do not share, quote, or use content for personal research before publication.
Do not contact authors directly. All communication via editor.
Delete manuscripts after review completion.