Guidelines for Reviewers

The unpublished manuscript is a privileged document. Please protect it from any form of exploitation. Reviewers are expected not to cite a manuscript or refer to the work it describes before it has been published, and to refrain from using the information it contains for the advancement of their own research.

A reviewer should consciously adopt a positive, impartial attitude towards the manuscript under review. Your position should be that of the author’s ally, with the aim of promoting effective and accurate scientific communication.

If you believe that you cannot judge a given article impartially, please return the manuscript immediately to the editor with that explanation.

Reviews should be completed expeditiously, within 3-4 weeks. If you know that you cannot finish the review within the time specified, please inform the editor.

A reviewer should not discuss a paper with its author/s. If you want to consult a colleague or junior, please discuss this with the editor first.

Please do not make any specific statement about the acceptability of a paper in your comments for transmission to the author, but advise the editor on the sheet provided.

Considerations for Reviewing the Manuscript

• Scientific reliability
• Importance (clinical or otherwise) of the question or subject studied
• Originality (truly original or known through foreign/specialist publications or the grapevine)
• Adequacy of abstract and keywords
• Appropriateness of approach or experimental design, adequacy of experimental techniques, statistical assessment
• Methods adequately described? Appropriate? Patients studied adequately described and their condition defined?
• Are results relevant to the problem posed? Credible? Well presented?
• Soundness of conclusions and interpretation. Reasonable speculation? Clear message?
• Relevance of discussion
• References up to date and relevant? Any glaring omissions?
• Relevance of figures and tables, clarity of legends and titles
• Suitability for the IJMR and overall recommendations
• If not acceptable, can the paper be made acceptable?
• Ethical aspects
• Overall presentation (writing style, clarity)

Comments for Authors

In comments intended for authors, criticism should be presented dispassionately, and abrasive remarks avoided. Suggested revisions should be couched as such, not expressed as conditions of acceptance. Distinguish between essential and desirable revisions.

Even if a paper is not accepted, constructive comments should help the author improve it. Provide detailed comments (with references, if appropriate) to assist editors and authors.

Your criticism, arguments, and suggestions concerning the paper will be most useful to the editor if carefully documented. You are not required to correct grammar mistakes, but any help is appreciated.

Reviewer Recommendations

The editor gratefully receives a reviewer’s recommendations. Since editorial decisions are based on multiple evaluations, a reviewer should not expect the editor to honor every recommendation. IJMR remunerates its reviewers per article for providing quality and timely reviews.

Please check for plagiarism using the link: https://www.plagramme.com

(These guidelines are based on the guidelines provided by the Council of Science Editors)