Reviewer's guidelines

Reviewers’ Responsibilities

Peer review is a cornerstone of the publication process. It supports the editorial team in making informed decisions and helps authors improve the quality of their manuscripts. Reviewers are entrusted with the responsibility of evaluating manuscripts in a confidential, objective, and professional manner.

Reviewers are expected to:

  • Treat all manuscripts as confidential documents.
  • Provide timely, constructive, and unbiased feedback.
  • Avoid using any part of the manuscript for personal gain or advantage.
  • Maintain professionalism and impartiality in all comments.
  • Declare any conflicts of interest (personal, institutional, or financial) and decline reviews if impartiality cannot be guaranteed.

 

Key Criteria for Evaluation

  1. Novelty and Scientific Value
  • Does the manuscript present original, innovative, and scientifically sound findings?
  • Does it contribute significantly to medical sciences?
  1. Ethical Compliance
  • Does the research comply with international ethical standards for human and animal studies?
  • Was informed consent obtained when necessary?
  1. Structure and Adherence to Guidelines
  • Is the manuscript organized in accordance with HJMS submission requirements?
  • Is the format consistent and professional?
  1. References
  • Are the citations accurate, relevant, and up to date?
  • Are claims supported with appropriate references?
  1. Language and Presentation
  • Is the manuscript written clearly, with correct grammar and spelling?
  • Are ideas presented in a logical and concise manner?

 

  1. Research Integrity
  • Is there evidence of plagiarism, duplicate publication, or data fabrication?
  • If suspected, provide detailed notes for the editor.

 

Section-by-Section Review

Title

  • Does the title accurately reflect the content and scope of the article?

Abstract

  • Does it provide a clear and concise summary of the objectives, methods, results, and conclusions?

Introduction

  • Are the objectives clearly stated?
  • Does it provide sufficient background and highlight the knowledge gap?
  • Is the rationale for the study clearly explained?

Methods

  • Is the research design appropriate to the stated objectives?
  • Is the methodology clear, detailed, and replicable?
  • Are sample selection, data collection, and analysis adequately described?
  • If new methods are used, are they explained thoroughly?

Results

  • Are the results presented logically and clearly?
  • Are statistical analyses properly applied and interpreted?
  • Do the results support the research question?

Discussion and Conclusion

  • Do the findings address the study objectives?
  • Are they compared with existing literature?
  • Do they contribute to advancing knowledge in the field?
  • Are the conclusions valid and supported by the data?

Tables, Figures, and Illustrations

  • Are they clear, accurate, and appropriately labeled?
  • Do they add value to the understanding of the results?

 

Ethical Considerations

  • Plagiarism: Report any suspected plagiarism with details of the original work.
  • Research ethics: Ensure adherence to ethical principles, including informed consent, patient confidentiality, and humane animal research practices.

 

Important Instructions for Reviewers

  • Do not share or discuss the manuscript with anyone without prior permission from the editor.
  • Do not contact the authors directly; all communication must be done through the HJMS editorial office.
  • Submit a complete “Reviewer’s Comments Form” with specific, constructive, and honest feedback within the requested deadline.