The following guidelines provide reviewers with detailed instructions on how to evaluate submissions for the medical journal. The purpose is to ensure a rigorous, unbiased, and ethically sound peer review process that upholds the highest standards of scientific quality and editorial integrity.

1. Integrity and Objectivity

• Evaluations must be impartial and based exclusively on the scientific merit of the manuscript, independent of the authors’ identity, affiliation, nationality, or academic rank.
• Reviewers are expected to provide constructive, actionable feedback aimed at strengthening the manuscript, even when recommending rejection.
• Reviewers must not request citations to their own work or specific journals unless they are directly relevant and scientifically justified.

2. Confidentiality

• All manuscripts under review are strictly confidential. Reviewers must not share, discuss, or distribute them with anyone else, including students, colleagues, or collaborators, without written permission from the editorial board.
• The use of any data, findings, or ideas from the manuscript prior to its publication is prohibited.
• Any communication or discussion related to the review should take place exclusively through the journal’s official submission system.

3. Assessing Research Quality

Reviewers should approach the evaluation in a structured and methodical manner, focusing on the following aspects:

• Originality and Impact: Assess whether the study introduces new knowledge or advances current understanding in its field.
• Methodological Rigor: Judge the appropriateness, transparency, and reproducibility of the research design, sampling, analytical methods, and interpretation of results.
• Data and Results: Verify that the results are credible, supported by data, and logically presented. Evaluate whether statistical analyses are appropriate and correctly applied.
• Scholarly Context: Assess whether the literature cited is relevant, balanced, and sufficient. Flag any indication of citation manipulation or biased referencing.

Additionally, reviewers are encouraged to provide a numerical score (1–5) for key aspects (originality, methods, results, presentation) and justify low scores with specific comments. This structured evaluation assists editors in making consistent decisions.

4. Review Report Structure

To ensure clarity and usefulness of the peer-review report, reviewers are expected to organize their evaluation into the following sections:

• Summary: A brief overview of the manuscript and its main findings.
• Overall Assessment: A short paragraph outlining the study’s strengths, limitations, and potential contribution to the field.
• Major Comments: Focused feedback on substantial scientific, methodological, or ethical issues that must be addressed before publication.
• Minor Comments: Notes on clarity, presentation, or minor revisions that do not affect the study’s validity.
• Recommendation: A clear decision (Accept, Minor Revision, Major Revision, Resubmit, or Reject) supported by a brief rationale.

5. Ethical Compliance

• Reviewers must verify that ethical approvals, informed consent, and research registration (where relevant) are appropriately documented.
• Any suspicion of misconduct — including plagiarism, data fabrication, image manipulation, duplicate submission, or undisclosed conflicts of interest — should be reported immediately to the editorial board using the Confidential Comments to the Editor
• Reviewers should not attempt to investigate suspected misconduct independently or contact the authors directly.

6. Providing Clear Recommendations

• The final recommendation must be evidence-based and justified. Reviewers should differentiate between issues that require substantial revision and those that are editorial or minor.
• Beyond the standard options (accept, minor, major, reject), reviewers may also recommend “Resubmit after substantial redesign” if the study is promising but needs significant restructuring.

7. Highlighting Strengths and Weaknesses

• Reviewers should clearly outline the key strengths of the manuscript (e.g., novelty, potential clinical relevance, methodological soundness) to help authors and editors understand its value.
• At the same time, weaknesses must be described precisely and accompanied by actionable suggestions on how they can be addressed.

8. Meeting Deadlines and Professional Responsibility

• Timeliness is critical to the peer-review process. Reviewers are expected to complete evaluations within 14 days of accepting the invitation. If additional time is needed, an extension of up to 7 days may be requested before the deadline.
• If unable to review, the reviewer must decline the invitation promptly to prevent delays.
• Reviewers should accept only assignments within their field of expertise and recuse themselves from manuscripts they cannot evaluate thoroughly.

9. Declaring Conflicts of Interest

• Any real or perceived conflict of interest — whether personal, professional, financial, or competitive — must be declared before reviewing the manuscript.
• If the conflict compromises the reviewer’s impartiality, they should decline the review.
• Examples include recent collaborations with the authors, competing research, or financial interests related to the manuscript’s topic.

10. Communication with the Editorial Board

• All concerns related to the manuscript, including ethical issues, data integrity, or conflicts of interest, must be communicated through the Confidential Comments to the Editor field in the review form.
• Reviewers must never contact the authors directly.
• The editorial board may request additional clarification from reviewers before making a final decision.

Note:
The reviewer’s role is crucial to maintaining the journal’s scientific credibility. A thorough, objective, and ethical review contributes significantly to the quality of published research and the advancement of medical knowledge. Reviewers are valued partners in the editorial process, and their evaluations should reflect a commitment to scientific rigor, fairness, and professional integrity.