Reviewer Guidelines

Welcome to The Journal of Medicine, Law & Public Health, a prestigious platform dedicated to advancing scholarly knowledge and promoting excellence in academic research. Peer review plays a crucial role in upholding the quality, rigor, and credibility of the research we publish. As a peer reviewer for the JMLPH, your contribution significantly impacts the integrity and progress of scientific discourse.

Overview of Manuscript Submission Process:

Discover the journey of a manuscript from submission to publication:

Submission: Authors submit their manuscriptsc to Research Involvement and Engagement using our user-friendly online submission system.
Initial Check: Upon submission, manuscripts undergo an initial evaluation to ensure compliance with the journal's guidelines and formatting requirements.
Editorial Assessment: An editor from the editorial board, selected for their expertise, is notified of the submission and invited to conduct an initial assessment. The editorial team assesses the manuscript's alignment with the journal's scope and overall suitability for peer review. Editors have the authority to determine whether to proceed with the peer review process, recommend or assign reviewers, reject the manuscript, or request revisions before peer review.
Peer Review: This means that experts in the field carefully examine and assess the research paper. At least two qualified reviewers evaluate the paper to ensure it has a strong methodology, is original, and has academic value.
Author Feedback: Authors receive constructive feedback from reviewers, facilitating improvements and clarifications in their work. Comments should be constructive and aimed at enhancing the manuscript without dismissive language or making personal comments.
Editorial Decision: The editorial team considers reviewer comments and makes an informed decision regarding acceptance, revisions, or rejection.
Revision (if needed): If revisions are necessary, authors are required to make substantial revisions, with a second round of peer review if necessary, before a final decision is made. Authors have the opportunity to enhance their manuscripts based on reviewer feedback.
Final Approval: Once revisions are completed and deemed satisfactory, the manuscript undergoes final approval for publication.
Publication: Accepted manuscripts undergo copy-editing and language editing before publication.

This overview offers a simplified depiction of the manuscript submission and review process, demonstrating our commitment to rigorous evaluation and the dissemination of high-quality research.

Why Engage in Peer Reviewing?

Participating in peer reviewing is a crucial and fundamental aspect of scholarly publishing, offering substantial benefits to both reviewers and the wider academic community. By contributing to the peer review process, you actively support the advancement of knowledge and uphold the standards of academic rigor. Here are compelling reasons to engage in peer reviewing:

Contribution to Academic Integrity: Peer reviewers play a pivotal role in upholding the credibility and integrity of scholarly publications. Your expertise ensures that only high-quality, well-founded research contributes to the academic discourse.
Professional Development: Engaging in peer review provides an opportunity for continuous learning and professional growth, allowing you to stay updated on the latest research trends, methodologies, and advancements in your field.
Networking and Collaboration: Peer reviewing offers a platform for networking with fellow experts in your field, potentially leading to collaborations and enriching your academic network.
Contribution to the Research Community: Reviewing manuscripts actively contributes to the growth and development of the research community, helping authors refine their work and fostering a culture of improvement and excellence.
Recognition and Visibility: Peer reviewers are essential contributors to the scholarly publishing process. Many journals recognize and acknowledge the efforts of their reviewers, enhancing your visibility within the academic community.
Stay Informed About Current Research: Peer reviewing exposes you to a diverse range of research topics and methodologies, allowing you to stay informed about the current state of research in your field.
Personal Satisfaction: Contributing to the dissemination of knowledge and the shaping of academic discourse can be personally fulfilling. Contributing to the scholarly community through peer review is a rewarding endeavour.

We appreciate and value the commitment of our peer reviewers to the scholarly publishing process. Your dedication strengthens the quality of the research we publish and fosters a collaborative and vibrant academic environment.

Reviewer Qualifications:

All reviewers hold a recognized degree in medicine, medical law/ethics, or public health and have made recognizable contributions to the body of knowledge in the research field. Reviewers are selected based on their familiarity with the subject under investigation, either through previously published work or current job assignments.

Becoming a Peer Reviewer:

To contribute as a peer reviewer for our journal, you can initiate the registration process by creating an account within our secure online submission system. During account activation, you'll have the opportunity to specify your classifications and areas of expertise. This step ensures that you receive manuscripts for peer review that align with your interests and expertise, enhancing the relevance of the review process. Your active participation as a peer reviewer is highly valued, and we appreciate your commitment to fostering the quality and integrity of scholarly research within our journal.

Ethical Guidelines for Reviewers:

In the peer review process, maintaining confidentiality is paramount. Reviewers are urged to recognize and uphold the confidential nature of their role, refraining from sharing any information related to the manuscript or their review with anyone not directly involved in the review process.

Emphasizing the constructive nature of the review, our guidelines encourage reviewers to provide detailed and specific feedback to authors, underscoring the significance of offering suggestions for improvement.

Ethical considerations are integral to the review process, with reviewers reminded to promptly report any ethical concerns, such as plagiarism or data fabrication. The guidelines underscore the critical importance of upholding ethical standards in both research and publication to ensure the integrity of the scholarly work under review.

Assessing Manuscript Alignment with Journal Scope:

Reviewers are tasked with providing insightful comments on the originality and significance of the research presented. This assessment helps contribute to the advancement of scholarly knowledge within the specified domain.

Evaluating Language and Style of Manuscripts:

In the assessment of submitted manuscripts, reviewers are asked to provide feedback on the clarity and coherence of the language and writing style employed. Reviewers play a critical role in ensuring that the manuscript is presented in a manner that is accessible to the intended audience. Additionally, reviewers are encouraged to offer constructive suggestions aimed at enhancing the overall presentation of the manuscript. This focus on language and style contributes to the readability and effectiveness of the research communication, ultimately enriching the scholarly experience for both authors and readers.

Guidance on Providing Recommendations:

When offering recommendations, reviewers are encouraged to clearly outline their assessment based on three distinct options: acceptance, minor/major revisions, or rejection. It is essential for reviewers to provide explicit guidance on justifying their recommendation, drawing on specific points identified during the review process. By articulating the rationale behind the recommendation, reviewers contribute to the transparency and fairness of the decision-making process, aiding both authors and editorial teams in understanding the basis for the final verdict on the manuscript. This clarity ensures that the review process is not only thorough but also constructive, fostering an environment of accountability and improvement.

Reviewers can utilize the following checklists:

STROBE Statement for Cohort, Case-control, or Cross-sectional studies

CONSORT checklist for Randomised Controlled Trials

PRISMA checklist for Systematic review and meta-analysis

CARE checklist for reporting a Case report

Supporting Editorial Decisions:

The guidance for reviewers emphasizes the importance of providing editors with feedback that assists them in making well-informed and objective decisions regarding the manuscript. By understanding the impact of their evaluations on the editorial process, reviewers significantly contribute to maintaining the quality and integrity of the journal. The collaborative effort between reviewers and editors ensures a fair and rigorous evaluation process, ultimately enhancing the overall scholarly standards of the publication.

Peer Review Considerations:

1- Originality and Significance:

  - Does the research present novel insights or contributions to the field?

2- Research Question:

  - Are the research questions clearly stated and aligned with the objectives?

3- Literature Review:

  - Is the literature review comprehensive, up-to-date, and providing sufficient context?

4- Methodology:

  - Is the research design appropriate for addressing the research questions?

  - Are the data collection methods clearly described and justified?

5- Data Analysis:

  - Is the data analysis method appropriate for the study design?

  - Are statistical methods and tests well-explained and justified?

6- Results:

  - Are the results presented and accurately interpreted?

  - Do the results directly address the research questions?

7- Discussion:

  - Does the discussion section interpret the results in the context of existing literature?

  - Are the study's limitations acknowledged and addressed?

8- Conclusion:

  - Does the conclusion logically follow from the study's findings?

  - Are implications and potential applications discussed?

9- Clarity and Coherence:

  - Is the writing clear, concise, and well-organized?

  - Are there areas where additional clarification is needed?

10- Originality and Contribution:

  - Does the manuscript contribute new knowledge to the field?

  - Is the research innovative and distinct from existing studies?

11- Ethical Considerations:

  - Are ethical considerations addressed, particularly regarding human or animal subjects?

  - Is there any indication of plagiarism or research misconduct?

12- References:

  - Are the references relevant, recent, and properly cited?

  - Are there any notable omissions in the citation of relevant literature?

13- Overall Recommendation:

  - Based on the evaluation, what is your overall recommendation for the manuscript (accept, minor/major revisions, reject)?

  - Can you provide specific feedback to guide the authors in improving their work?

Post-Review:

Following the authors' revisions, you may be requested to review the manuscript again to ensure that your concerns have been adequately addressed.

Timeline:

Submit your review within the specified timeframe, typically 2 weeks. If you need more time, please inform the editorial office promptly.

After completing your review, submit the report through the journal's online submission system.

Review Guidelines:

Summary: Provide an overview of the manuscript and your overall impressions.
Major Concerns: Highlight significant issues that need attention.
Minor Concerns: List smaller issues that could improve the manuscript.
Recommendations: Suggest acceptance, revision, or rejection with clear reasons.

We extend our sincere appreciation to the dedicated reviewers who are integral to shaping the scholarly landscape of the JMLPH. Your commitment to the peer review process is crucial for maintaining the academic rigor and credibility of our publication. We acknowledge the significant time and expertise you invest in evaluating manuscripts, providing constructive feedback, and ensuring the scholarly merit of the research we showcase. Your thorough and thoughtful assessments contribute to the continuous improvement of submitted works and have a lasting impact on the academic community. As partners in the advancement of knowledge, your conscientious efforts propel our journal forward, fostering an environment of excellence and intellectual growth. We thank you for your continued dedication and look forward to your ongoing collaboration with the JMLPH. For any queries or assistance, please feel free to reach out to our editorial team at [email protected].