Peer Reviewer Guidelines: Standards and Best Practices

International Medical Journal of Health (IMJH)

ISSN: 2395-6291 | COPE Member | Double-Blind Peer Review

"Peer review is the critical assessment of manuscripts submitted to journals by experts who are usually not part of the editorial staff. Because unbiased, independent, critical assessment is an intrinsic part of all scholarly work, including scientific research, peer review is an important extension of the scientific process."

6. Conflicts of Interest
7. Structuring Your Review
8. Evaluation Criteria
9. Language and Tone
10. Making Recommendations

1. Purpose of Peer Review at IMJH

Primary Objectives

Quality Assurance: Ensure that published research meets accepted standards of scientific rigor and validity
Constructive Improvement: Provide authors with specific, actionable feedback to strengthen their work
Selection: Assist editors in making informed decisions about which manuscripts to publish
Integrity: Identify potential ethical issues including plagiarism, data fabrication, and authorship disputes
Reader Protection: Safeguard the medical community and patients from unreliable research

What Peer Review Is NOT

Not Copyediting: Minor grammar corrections are appreciated but not required; focus on scientific content
Not Personal Criticism: Evaluate the work, not the authors
Not Verification of Every Data Point: Assess overall validity and methodology; you cannot verify every individual data point
Not a Popularity Contest: Decisions should be based on scientific merit, not author reputation or institution
Not a Citation Generator: Do not request citations to your own work unless genuinely relevant

IMJH Peer Review Model: Double-Blind

IMJH employs a double-blind peer review model. This means:

Reviewers do not know the identities of the authors
Authors do not know the identities of the reviewers
Authors must remove all identifying information from their manuscript files before submission
Reviewers must not attempt to identify authors during the review process
If you recognize the authors or suspect their identity, notify the editor immediately

Double-Blind

Reviewers & Authors
Mutually Anonymous

2. The Reviewer's Role in the Editorial Process

You Are an Advisor, Not the Decision-Maker

Reviewers provide expert advice to editors, who make the final publication decisions. Your role is to evaluate, recommend, and help improve—not to decide.

Expert Evaluator

Assess scientific validity, methodology, and significance within your area of expertise

Constructive Critic

Identify weaknesses and provide specific suggestions for improvement

Integrity Guardian

Flag ethical concerns, plagiarism, and research misconduct

Important Distinction:

Your recommendation (accept, minor revision, major revision, reject) is advisory only. The editor may make a different decision based on multiple reviews, editorial policy, and journal scope. Do not be offended if your recommendation is not followed—this is normal and appropriate.

3. Before You Accept: Critical Self-Assessment

Respond Promptly: Within 48 Hours

Please accept or decline review invitations within 48 hours. Delayed responses delay the entire publication process for authors.

You SHOULD Accept If:

Expertise Match: You have sufficient expertise to evaluate the manuscript competently
Time Availability: You can complete the review within the requested timeframe (7 days)
No Conflicts: You have no conflicts of interest that would impair objectivity
Can Be Objective: You can evaluate the work fairly regardless of your personal opinions
Confidentiality: You can maintain strict confidentiality of the manuscript

You SHOULD DECLINE If:

Outside Expertise: The manuscript is outside your area of expertise
Insufficient Time: You cannot meet the deadline due to workload or other commitments
Conflict of Interest: You have any financial, personal, or professional conflict
Cannot Be Objective: You have strong positive or negative bias about the work or authors
Recognize Authors: You can identify the authors despite blinding
Competing Work: You are working on similar research that could be affected

How to Decline Professionally

When declining, you can help the editor by:

Suggesting alternative reviewers with relevant expertise
Indicating if you would be available for future invitations
Briefly stating the reason (e.g., "outside my expertise," "conflict of interest")

Decline Email Template:

"Thank you for the invitation. Unfortunately, I am unable to accept due to [brief reason]. I recommend [Name, Institution, Email] as a potential reviewer. I remain available for future invitations."

4. Ethical Responsibilities of Peer Reviewers

COPE Core Practices

IMJH follows COPE (Committee on Publication Ethics) guidelines for peer review ethics. All reviewers are expected to adhere to these standards.

Required Ethical Practices

Confidentiality: Treat the manuscript as a confidential document; do not discuss or share it with others
Objectivity: Evaluate solely on scientific merit; avoid personal, institutional, or geographic bias
Disclosure: Reveal any potential conflicts of interest to the editor
Acknowledgement: Respect the intellectual property of authors; do not use unpublished data for your own research
Timeliness: Complete reviews promptly or decline if unable to meet deadlines
Constructiveness: Provide respectful, specific, actionable feedback

Prohibited Practices

No Ghost Reviewing: Do not delegate the review to a colleague or trainee without editor permission
No Author Contact: Do not contact authors directly about their manuscript
No Coercive Citation: Do not suggest citations to inflate your own metrics
No Misuse of Information: Do not use unpublished ideas or data for personal advantage
No Delaying Tactics: Do not accept then delay to disadvantage competitors
No Personal Attacks: Criticize the work, not the authors

Consequences of Ethical Violations

IMJH takes ethical violations seriously. Consequences may include:

First violation: Warning from editor and educational resources provided
Repeated violations: Removal from reviewer database and prohibition from future reviewing
Severe violations: Notification to reviewer's institution or employer
Fraud or data theft: Legal action may be pursued

Report Concerns:

info@imjhealth.org
info.imjh@gmail.com

5. Confidentiality and Data Protection

Manuscripts Are Privileged Information

Unpublished manuscripts are the confidential property of the authors. Reviewers must protect this confidentiality at all times.

Confidentiality DOs

Read and assess the manuscript alone or with editor-approved collaborators only
Delete or destroy manuscript files after completing your review
Notify the editor immediately if confidentiality is accidentally breached
Maintain confidentiality even after publication regarding the review process
Secure manuscript files on password-protected devices

Confidentiality DON'Ts

Do not discuss the manuscript with colleagues, students, or anyone else
Do not share the manuscript file via email, social media, or file-sharing platforms
Do not use ideas or data from the manuscript in your own research
Do not post about the manuscript on social media or preprint servers
Do not retain copies of the manuscript after review completion

Special Circumstance: Involving Trainees

If you wish to involve a trainee (PhD student, postdoc, resident) in the review process, you must first obtain permission from the editor. The trainee's name should be included in the review submission with their role acknowledged. The trainee must agree to the same confidentiality and ethical obligations. The final review remains your responsibility.

6. Identifying and Managing Conflicts of Interest

When in Doubt, Declare

If you are uncertain whether a relationship constitutes a conflict, disclose it to the editor. Transparency is always the best policy.

Financial Conflicts

Employment: Current or recent employment at the same institution as authors
Funding: Research funding from the same sponsor as the submitted work
Consulting: Paid consultancy for entities related to the research
Stock/Equity: Ownership interests in companies related to the work
Patents: Intellectual property rights related to the manuscript
Speaking Fees: Honoraria from organizations with interest in the research

Personal & Professional Conflicts

Collaboration: Current or recent (within 3 years) research collaboration
Mentorship: Current or recent mentor-trainee relationship
Competition: Direct competitor in the same research area
Personal Relationship: Family member, close friend, or romantic partner
Rivalry: Long-standing academic or personal rivalry
Institutional: Same department or division

Conflict of Interest Declaration Process

Identify: Review the manuscript details and identify any potential conflicts
Decline or Disclose:
- If the conflict is significant and impairs objectivity → Decline the invitation
- If the conflict is minor or uncertain → Disclose to the editor when accepting
Editor Decision: The editor will determine if the conflict requires recusal or is manageable
Documentation: All disclosures are recorded in the reviewer's confidential file

Disclosure Template:

"I have read the manuscript and wish to disclose that [nature of relationship with authors or institutions]. I believe this does/does not impair my ability to provide an objective review. I leave it to the editor's discretion whether I should proceed."

7. Structuring Your Peer Review Report

IMJH Structured Review Format

A well-structured review helps authors understand your feedback and editors make decisions.

Recommended Review Structure

1. Summary Statement (1-2 sentences)

Briefly summarize the manuscript's main question, methods, and key findings. This demonstrates to editors and authors that you understood the work.

"This prospective cohort study examines the association between daily step count and 5-year cardiovascular event rates in 5,000 adults with hypertension."

2. Overall Assessment (1 paragraph)

Your general impression of the work: Is it novel? Important? Methodologically sound? What are its primary strengths and weaknesses?

3. Major Comments

Substantive issues that affect the validity, interpretation, or overall quality of the research. These typically require changes to address.

"1. The authors used a convenience sample rather than a random sample. This may introduce selection bias. Please discuss how this might affect generalizability."

4. Minor Comments

Issues that could improve clarity or presentation but do not affect the scientific validity. Include page/line numbers when possible.

"1. Page 5, Line 23: The abbreviation 'HbA1c' should be defined at first use."

5. Specific Recommendations (Optional)

Additional analyses, figures, or experiments that would strengthen the paper (but are not required for publication).

6. Confidential Comments to Editor (Optional)

Information that is relevant to the editorial decision but should not be shared with authors (e.g., suspicions of ethical violations, concerns about specific authors).

IMJH Review Template

SUMMARY:

[1-2 sentences]

OVERALL ASSESSMENT:

[Strengths and weaknesses]

MAJOR COMMENTS:

1. [Issue] - [Rationale] - [Suggestion]

2. [Issue] - [Rationale] - [Suggestion]

MINOR COMMENTS:

1. [Page/Line] - [Issue] - [Suggestion]

2. [Page/Line] - [Issue] - [Suggestion]

RECOMMENDATION:

[ ] Accept
[ ] Minor Revision
[ ] Major Revision
[ ] Reject
[ ] Transfer

8. Detailed Evaluation Criteria by Section

Manuscript Section	Questions to Consider	Common Issues to Flag
Title & Abstract	Does the title accurately reflect the content? Is the abstract structured appropriately? Are key findings and conclusions included?	Misleading or overly broad title Abstract includes information not in paper Missing key numerical results
Introduction	Does it establish the background and rationale? Is the research question clearly stated? Is relevant literature appropriately cited?	Incomplete literature review No clear hypothesis or objective Overstated knowledge gap
Methods	Is the study design appropriate for the research question? Are the methods described in sufficient detail? Are statistical analyses appropriate? Is ethical approval documented?	Insufficient detail for reproducibility Inappropriate statistical tests Missing inclusion/exclusion criteria No sample size justification
Results	Are results clearly presented? Do tables and figures support the text? Is there duplication between text and figures?	Selective reporting of outcomes Figures not self-explanatory Incomplete or missing data
Discussion	Are findings interpreted in context of existing literature? Are limitations acknowledged? Are conclusions supported by the data?	Overinterpretation of results Failure to acknowledge limitations Speculation beyond evidence
References	Are references current and relevant? Is the citation style consistent?	Excessive self-citation Missing key papers in the field Incomplete reference details

Rating Scale Guidance

1 - Excellent

No revisions needed

2 - Good

Minor revisions

3 - Fair

Major revisions needed

4 - Poor

Fundamental flaws

9. Language, Tone, and Professionalism

Be Constructive, Not Destructive

Your goal is to help authors improve their work, not to demonstrate superiority or punish perceived inadequacies.

DO: Constructive Language

✓ "The authors present an interesting hypothesis, but additional data would strengthen the conclusion."

✓ "This section would benefit from clarification of the statistical methods used."

✓ "The authors may wish to consider an alternative interpretation of these findings."

DON'T: Destructive Language

✗ "This study is completely flawed and should never have been submitted."

✗ "The authors clearly don't understand basic statistics."

✗ "This is a trivial contribution to the field."

Guidelines for Professional Communication

Be specific: Vague criticism is unhelpful. Tell authors exactly what needs improvement.
Be respectful: Address the work, not the authors.
Be humble: Frame suggestions as opinions, not absolute truths. Use phrases like "It appears that..." or "The authors might consider..."
Be balanced: Acknowledge strengths as well as weaknesses.

Avoid sarcasm: Sarcasm does not translate well in written communication.
Avoid demands: Use "suggest" rather than "require" unless the issue is essential.
Avoid hyperbole: Words like "never," "always," and "impossible" are rarely accurate.
Proofread: Your review reflects your professionalism. Check for typos and unclear phrasing.

10. Making Your Recommendation to the Editor

Your Recommendation Is Advisory

The editor considers your recommendation alongside other reviews and journal policies before making a final decision.

Recommendation Options and Criteria

Recommendation	Definition	When to Use
Accept	The manuscript is ready for publication in its current form or requires only minor copyediting.	Rare. Only when no revisions are needed.
Minor Revision	The manuscript requires small changes that do not affect the scientific validity or interpretation.	Clarifications, additional explanations, minor corrections, additional references.
Major Revision	The manuscript requires substantial changes that may require additional analysis, rewriting, or data presentation.	Additional analyses needed, major rewriting, additional experiments (if feasible), significant clarification of methods.
Reject	The manuscript has fundamental flaws that cannot be addressed through revision, or is not suitable for the journal.	Fatal methodological flaws, lack of novelty, major ethical concerns, out of scope.
Transfer	The manuscript may be more suitable for another journal section or a different publication.	Case reports, narrative reviews, or manuscripts that are sound but better suited elsewhere.

Before Submitting Your Review

Check for completeness: Have you addressed all major aspects of the manuscript?
Review your tone: Would you find this review helpful if you were the author?
Verify recommendations: Is your recommendation consistent with your comments?

Remove identifying information: Do not include your name or institution in the comments to authors.
Declare conflicts: Have you disclosed any potential conflicts to the editor?
Meet deadline: Submit your review by the requested date or request an extension.

Standard Review Period: 7 days from acceptance. If you need more time, request an extension before the deadline.

Quick Reviewer Checklist

Before Accepting:

✓ Do I have expertise in this area?
✓ Do I have time to complete the review within 7 days?
✓ Do I have any conflicts of interest?
✓ Can I maintain confidentiality?

Before Submitting:

✓ Have I provided specific, actionable feedback?
✓ Have I maintained a respectful, constructive tone?
✓ Is my recommendation consistent with my comments?
✓ Have I declared any potential conflicts?

Questions About Reviewing?

If you have questions about these guidelines, ethical dilemmas, or technical issues with the review system, please contact our editorial office:

Primary Email: info@imjhealth.org
Secondary Email: info.imjh@gmail.com

Subject: "Reviewer Inquiry: [Manuscript ID if applicable]"

Not Yet an IMJH Reviewer?

Join our global network of peer reviewers:

✓ Contribute to quality medical research
✓ Receive recognition and APC discounts
✓ Access free reviewer training resources
✓ Build your CV and professional network

Apply Now

At a Glance

Review deadline: 7 days

Accept/decline: 48 hours

Review format: Structured

Blinding: Double-blind

COPE member: Yes