Peer reviewers play a vital role in ensuring the integrity of the works of the scholars. The peer review process depends mainly on the trust and willing participation of the scholarly community, requiring every individual to be ethical & responsible. Peer reviewers play a pivotal and critical part in the peer review process, but they should also be guided properly according to the ethical rules & regulations. Our journal is obliged to provide transparent policies for peer review, and reviewers have an obligation to conduct reviews in an ethical and responsible way. Clear communication between the journal and the reviewers is essential to facilitate consistent, fair and timely review.
There are many types of peer-review models, JRMC uses the double blind model.
If you are an expert in your field or have been an author who has benefited from the peer review process then you should consider becoming peer reviewers as a part of your professional responsibilities. As a potential reviewer should provide your personal and professional information that is accurate and a fair representation of their expertise, including verifiable contact information along with your updated CV. It is important to be aware that impersonation of another individual during the review process is considered a serious misconduct (e.g. see COPE Case 12-12: Compromised peer review in published papers).
Fill the Peer Review Form and submit your latest updated CV at firstname.lastname@example.org if you wish to become a peer reviewer for us. An acknowledgment in this regard will be sent to you after the form and CV are received.
Agreeing to review: When approached to review, agree to review only if you have the necessary expertise to assess the manuscript and can be unbiased in your assessment.
Initial steps: Read the manuscript, supplementary data files, and ancillary material thoroughly & get back to the journal if anything is not clear & request for any missing or incomplete items. You should not contact the authors directly.
Confidentiality: Respect of the confidentiality should be maintained & refrain from using information obtained during the peer review process for your own or another’s an advantage, or to disadvantage or discredit others (e.g. see COPE Case 14-06: Possible breach of reviewer confidentiality).
Bias and competing interests: Declare all potential competing, or conflicting, interests. It is important to remain unbiased to all considerations related to the nationality, religious or political beliefs, gender, or other characteristics of the authors & origins of a manuscript.
Suspicion of ethics violations: Any irregularities with respect to research and publication ethics, should be reported to the journal(e.g. see COPE Case 02-11: Contacting research ethics committees with concerns over studies)
Format: Follow the sections in the peer review form mailed to you. If a particular file needs to be attached, attach it with the form or write to email@example.com . Be objective and constructive in your review, providing feedback that will help the authors to improve their manuscript.
Appropriate feedback: Give a fair, honest, and unbiased assessment of the strengths and weaknesses of the manuscript to the editor.
Language and style: Do not attempt to rewrite it to your own preferred style if it is basically sound and clear; however, you can always suggest changes that can improve clarity.
Suggestions for further work: Reviewer should comment and explain what additional analyses would clarify the work submitted, or if any other changes are needed in the manuscript.
Accountability: Prepare the report by yourself. Refrain from making unfair negative comments. Don’t intentionally prolong the review process, either by delaying the submission of your review or by requesting unnecessary additional information from the journal or authors’ work that is mentioned in the manuscript.