Index & Covered










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:
Reviewers:
The peer-review process
Peer Review Policy
Once a manuscript clears the initial screening, it is sent for peer review.
Before you accept or decline an invitation to review, consider the following questions:
Respond to the invitation within one week.
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
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
Originality:
Significance:
Quality of Presentation:
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 the current knowledge? Do the authors have addressed an important long-standing question with smart experiments?
Introduction:
Methodology: This section should include the following without subheadings in an organized manner.
Results:
Discussion:
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 Research)
(Review Articles, Case reports, Short communication, Clinical notes, Mini-Review)
Into Practice (case studies)
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.
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:
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.
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)
Index & Covered
ISSN Number
Print: 2221-7827
Online: 2310-5542