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:

The COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers set out the basic principles and standards to which all peer reviewers should adhere during the peer-review process. (publicationethics)


  • 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.

  • Double-blind:
    We use a review process in which the 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

Confidential material

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

Your review will be managed via the JUMDC submission system. The University Medical & Dental College Journal accepts articles via OJS (open journal system).There is a generic login link for each article. To access the paper and deliver your review, click on the link in the invitation email you received, which will bring you to the submission and review system.

Guidelines for Reviewers:

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 points in mind.


This manuscript is a valuable addition to the literature. Is the question original and well defined? Do the results provide an advance in current knowledge? Is the English language appropriate and understandable?


Are the results interpreted appropriately? Are they significant? Are all the conclusions justified and supported by the results?

Quality of Presentation:

Is the article written in an appropriate way? Are the data and analyses presented appropriately? 
  • Title: Does it clearly describe the article?
  • Abstract: Does it reflect the content of the article?

Scientific Soundness:

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 current knowledge? Do the authors have addressed an important long-standing question with smart experiments?


This section of the manuscript should take a deductive approach. This should specify the background and the rationale for the study, with reference to national, regional, and international literature. It should also briefly describe the purpose of the study. By the end of the introduction, the author should provide a road map that outlines your main points.

Methodology: This section should include the following, without subheadings, in an organised manner.

  • Ethical review statement
  • Study design and settings
  • Study duration
  • Define how you collected or generated data, the sampling method, and sample size calculations 
  • Inclusion and exclusion criteria
  • Details of the apparatus (including the name and address of the manufacturer if applicable) and/or drugs or chemicals used. Use the generic names of the drugs or chemicals along with the dose(s) and route(s) of administration. Statistics should clearly include the tests applied along with the statistical software package used with the version.
For patients, age, sex, and a mean age ±standard deviation must be given. The statistical method must be mentioned, and any general computer programme used must be specified.


The results should justify your claims. This section should summarize your results through text, graphs, tables, and figures, to report your statistical findings. Avoid repetitions of data shown through tables, figures and in the text. 


The purpose of the discussion is to interpret and describe the significance of your findings in light of what was already known about the research problem being investigated, and to explain any new understanding or fresh insights about the problem after you've taken the findings into consideration. It must be mentioned whether the hypothesis mentioned in the article is true, false or no conclusions can be derived. Strengths and limitations should be mentioned at the end of this section.

Conclusion(s): Briefly summarize the net findings of your study without overemphasizing them.  It should not include any findings or benefits not mentioned in the results. 

Article Types Considered

 (Original Research)

  • 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, or results of policies 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.

 Ethical considerations

Experiments including patient or animal should be properly documented. JUMDC requires ethical approval by the author’s host organization. Please check journal-specific guidelines for such cases (available from the journal’s homepage, accessible via

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 judgement 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.,a reviewer proforma) or other instructions for how to structure your feedback.

Reviewer’s  Recommendation:

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.

Editor’s Decision:

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. (