Reviewers Roles and Responsibilities
Reviewing is a time-intensive process – writing a review report can be almost as much work as writing a manuscript! – But it is very worthwhile for the reviewer as well as for the community.
COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer-Reviewers:
Ensure the rigorous standards of the scientific process by taking part in the peer-review system.
Uphold the integrity of the journal by identifying invalid research, and helping to maintain the quality of the journal.
- Fulfill a sense of obligation to the community and their own area of research.
Establish relationships with reputable colleagues and their affiliated journals, and increase their opportunities to join an Editorial Board.
Can help prevent ethical breaches by identifying plagiarism, research fraud, and other problems by dint of their familiarity with the subject area.
Reciprocate professional courtesy, as authors and reviewers are often interchangeable roles – as reviewers, researchers "repay" the same consideration they receive as authors.
The peer-review process
Peer Review Policy
Once a manuscript clears the initial screening, it is sent for peer review.
We use a review process in which, names of reviewers and authors are not revealed to each other. Generally, we send the article to 3-4 reviewers.
1- Getting started
Before you accept or decline an invitation to review, consider the following questions:
Does the article match your area of expertise? Only accept if you feel you can provide a high-quality review.
- Do you have a potential conflict of interest? Disclose this to the editor when you respond.
- Do you have time? Reviewing can be a lot of work – before you commit, make sure you can meet the deadline.
- Do you need to find out more about reviewing and the peer review process?
Respond to the invitation within one week.
2- How to access the review file
If you accept, you must treat the materials you receive as confidential documents. This means you can’t share them with anyone without prior authorization from the editor
How to log in and access your review
Guidelines for Reviewer:
When you sit down to write the review, make sure you familiarize yourself with journal-specific guidelines (these will be noted in the journal’s guide for authors available on the link). First, read the article. You might consider spot-checking major issues by choosing which section to read first. Below we offer some tips about handling specific parts of the paper.
The Review: When reviewing the article, please keep the following in mind
Quality of Presentation:
- Title: Does it clearly describe the article?
- Abstract: Does it reflect the content of the article?
Interesting for the reader: Are the conclusions interesting for the readership of the Journal? Will the paper attract a wide readership, or be of interest only to a limited number of people? (Please see the Aims and Scope of the journal).
Overall Merit/ Benefit of the Research:
Is there an overall benefit to publishing this work? Does the work provide an advance towards the current knowledge? Do the authors have addressed an important long-standing question with smart experiments?
Methodology: This section should include the following without subheadings in an organized manner.
- Ethical review statement
- Study design and settings
- Study duration
- Define how you collected or generated data, Sampling method, and sample size calculations
- Inclusion and exclusion criteria
Details of apparatus (if applicable with manufacture’s name and address) and or drugs/chemicals used. Use generic name/s of drugs/ chemicals along with dose (s) and route(s) of administration Statistics should clearly include the tests applied along with the statistical software package used with the version.
Conclusion(s): Briefly summarize the net findings of your study without overemphasizing them. It should not include any findings/benefits not mentioned in the results.
Article Types Considered
- Original Data and Trials
- Submissions should present data that offer novel approaches to improving the systems, processes, and tools involved with delivering care.
- Policy Research and Observational Analyses
-Submissions should describe the feasibility, cost-effectiveness, implementation of, or results of policy concerning the delivery of health care. This includes but is not limited to policy topics such as health care reform, health IT, delivery and payment regulation, quality improvement, and comparative delivery innovation.
(Review Articles, Case reports, Short communication, Clinical notes, Mini-Review)
- Submissions should be a critical, systematic review of the literature concerning issues that are relevant to the delivery of health care. Reviews should be focused on one topic
Into Practice (case studies)
- Submissions should describe situations where individuals were faced with a challenge in health care delivery. The article should describe the challenge faced, the options, the thought process behind the decision made, and the lessons learned.
Visualizations of Data
Once you are satisfied that the methodology is sufficiently robust, examine any data in the form of figures, tables, or images to enable readers to interact and engage more closely with their research after publication.
3. Structuring your review
Your review will help the editor decide whether or not to publish the article. It will also aid the author and allow them to improve their manuscript. Your comments should be courteous and constructive, and should not include any ad hominem remarks or personal details including your name. You should explain and support your judgment so that both editors and authors are able to fully understand the reasoning behind your comments. You should indicate whether your comments are your own opinion or are reflected by the data and evidence.
The journals of University Medical & Dental College have a specific format (e.g. Reviewer Proforma) or other instructions for how to structure your feedback.
When you make a recommendation, it is worth considering the categories the editor will likely use for classifying the article:
- Publish (No, significant revisions required)
- Publish, but suggest changes to the article specified in this review
- Accept, with minor revision
- Accept, with major revision
Access the JUMDC support person for further help.
The editor ultimately decides whether to accept or reject the article. The editor will weigh all views and may call for another opinion or ask the author for a revised paper before making a decision.
4. Review Completed:
Once you have completed the review, you might want to make use of (JUMDC-HF 2020) to receive credit for your work. For detailed information please visit. (http://www.jumdc.com/index.php/jumdc/benefitsforreviewers)