For Reviewers

Purpose of Peer Review

Peer review is a critical component of scholarly publishing. Reviewers help editors assess the originality, methodological soundness, ethical integrity, clarity, and relevance of submitted manuscripts. Reviewers are expected to provide fair, objective, constructive, and timely evaluations that support sound editorial decision-making and help authors improve their work. ICMJE states that reviewers should respond promptly, keep manuscripts confidential, and provide comments that are constructive, honest, and polite.

Reviewer Eligibility

A reviewer should accept an invitation only when:

  • the manuscript falls within the reviewer’s area of expertise;
  • the reviewer can complete the review within the requested time;
  • the reviewer can provide an impartial and independent assessment;
  • no disqualifying conflict of interest exists.

Confidentiality

All manuscripts received for review are confidential documents. Reviewers must not:

  • share the manuscript with unauthorized persons;
  • discuss the manuscript publicly or privately without journal permission;
  • use ideas, data, interpretations, or findings from the manuscript for personal or professional advantage before publication;
  • retain copies of the manuscript for personal use after completing the review.

Conflicts of Interest

Reviewers must disclose any relationship, activity, or interest that could influence, or reasonably appear to influence, their judgment. Reviewers should decline the invitation if they have a conflict that prevents an unbiased review.

Examples of potential conflicts include:

  • recent collaboration with one or more authors;
  • institutional affiliation with the authors;
  • personal, academic, or professional rivalry;
  • financial interest in the results or products discussed;
  • involvement in related competing work.

Timeliness

Reviewers should respond promptly to invitations. If a reviewer cannot complete the review within the deadline, the reviewer should decline as soon as possible so that the journal can invite an alternative reviewer.

Use of Artificial Intelligence Tools

Reviewers must follow the journal’s policy on AI-assisted review. A reviewer must not upload a manuscript, figures, tables, or supplementary files to external AI tools if confidentiality cannot be assured. If the journal permits limited AI-assisted use, the reviewer must disclose that use to the editor and remains fully responsible for the content, accuracy, judgment, and confidentiality of the review.

Review Principles

Reviewers should assess manuscripts objectively and professionally. Comments should focus on the scholarly content and should never include hostile, dismissive, or personal remarks. Reviewers should not seek personal advantage through the process, including by pressuring authors to cite the reviewer’s work without clear scientific justification.

Good reviewer practice includes:

  • evaluating the manuscript on merit, not on the author’s presumed identity, institution, country, or viewpoint;
  • providing specific, evidence-based comments;
  • distinguishing major concerns from minor issues;
  • suggesting improvements where possible;
  • avoiding personal criticism.

What Reviewers Should Evaluate

Reviewers should comment on the following areas as relevant to the manuscript type:

1 Relevance and Scope

  • Is the manuscript suitable for the aims and scope of the journal?
  • Is the topic important for medicine, health sciences, education, or public health?
  • Will the article be useful to the journal’s readership?

2 Originality and Importance

  • Does the manuscript add new knowledge, insight, or synthesis?
  • Is the research question meaningful and clearly stated?
  • Does the paper contribute beyond what is already known?

3 Scientific and Methodological Quality

  • Is the study design appropriate to the research question?
  • Are the methods clearly described and sufficiently rigorous?
  • Are sample selection, controls, measurements, and analysis appropriate?
  • Is the statistical approach appropriate and adequately explained?

4 Ethical Standards

  • Is there evidence of ethics approval where required?
  • Is informed consent reported where applicable?
  • Are human and animal research protections addressed appropriately?
  • Are there concerns about plagiarism, duplicate publication, image manipulation, or data integrity?

5 Reporting Quality

  • Is the manuscript clearly structured and logically organized?
  • Does the title accurately reflect the content?
  • Does the abstract summarize the study accurately?
  • Are tables and figures clear, relevant, and necessary?
  • Are references current, relevant, and sufficient?

6 Interpretation and Conclusions

  • Are the conclusions supported by the results?
  • Are limitations acknowledged appropriately?
  • Is the discussion balanced and evidence-based?
  • Are claims proportionate to the findings?

Reviewer Recommendations

Reviewers may recommend one of the following decisions, while recognizing that the final decision rests with the editor:

  • Accept
  • Minor Revision
  • Major Revision
  • Reject

The recommendation should be supported by the reviewer’s comments. Reviewers should avoid inconsistency, such as recommending acceptance while raising unresolved major methodological concerns.

Reviewer Conduct in Special Situations

Reviewers should notify the editor immediately if they identify:

  • possible plagiarism or substantial overlap with published work;
  • duplicate or redundant publication;
  • possible fabricated, falsified, or manipulated data;
  • questionable image handling;
  • undisclosed conflicts of interest;
  • unethical research practices;
  • serious authorship concerns.

Reviewer Anonymity and Peer Review Model

Medical Journal of IOSAT uses double-anonymous peer review unless otherwise stated for a specific article type or section. Reviewers should avoid including identifying information in comments intended for authors. Where reviewer identity is intentionally disclosed under a different review model, the journal will communicate that clearly.

Guidance for Constructive Comments

Constructive reviewer comments should:

  • identify strengths as well as weaknesses;
  • explain why an issue matters;
  • suggest practical ways to improve the manuscript;
  • distinguish essential revisions from optional suggestions;
  • maintain a respectful and professional tone.