JIACM endorses the Publishing Ethics Resource Kit (PERK) guidelines for editors, authors and reviewers (https://www.elsevier.com/editors/perk). Specifically, reviewers are advised to read the guidelines at https://www.journals.elsevier.com/healthcare-the-journal.../guidelines-for-reviewers.
Briefly, the guidelines are as follows. Before reviewing the manuscript, the reviewer must ascertain the following facts:
- Does the article you are being asked to review match your expertise?
- Do you have time to review the paper? Finished reviews of an article should be completed within two weeks. If you do not think you can complete the review within this time frame, please let the editor know and if possible, suggest an alternate reviewer. If you have agreed to review a paper but will no longer be able to finish the work before the deadline, please contact the editor as soon as possible.
- Are there any potential conflicts of interests?
While reviewing the manuscript, the reviewer must keep in mind:
Content Quality and Originality,
- Is the article sufficiently novel and interesting to warrant publication? Does it add to the canon of knowledge? Does the article adhere to the journal's standards? Is the research question an important one?
Organization and Clarity
Title: Does it clearly describe the article?
- Abstract: Does it reflect the content of the article?
- Introduction: Does it describe what the author hoped to achieve accurately, and clearly state the problem being investigated?
- Method: Does the author accurately explain how the data was collected? Is the design suitable for answering the question posed? Is there sufficient information present for you to replicate the research? Does the article identify the procedures followed? If the methods are new, are they explained in detail? Was the sampling appropriate? Have the equipment and materials been adequately described? Does the article make it clear what type of data was recorded; has the author been precise in describing measurements?
- Results: This is where the author/s should explain in words what he/she discovered in the research. It should be clearly laid out and in a logical sequence. Y
- Conclusion/Discussion: Are the claims in this section supported by the results, do they seem reasonable? Does the conclusion explain how the research has moved the body of scientific knowledge forward?
- Tables, Figures, Images: Are they appropriate? Do they properly show the data? Are they easy to interpret and understand?
- Scope - Is the article in line with the aims and scope of the journal?
Final Comments
- All submissions are confidential and please do not discuss any aspect of the submissions with a third party.
- If you would like to discuss the article with a colleague, please ask the editor first.
- Please do not contact the author directly.
- Ethical Issues:
- - Plagiarism: If you suspect that an article is a substantial copy of another work, please let the editor know, citing the previous work in as much detail as possible
- - Fraud: If you suspect the results in an article to be untrue, discuss it with the editor
- - Other ethical concerns: For medical research, has confidentiality been maintained? Has there been a violation of the accepted norms in the ethical treatment of animal or human subjects? If so, then these should also be identified to the editor