Guidance for Peer Reviewers


Manuscript reviewers must not disclose any information regarding submitted manuscripts. All submitted manuscripts are to be treated as privileged information. Editors should provide guidance to reviewers on everything that is expected of them including the need to handle submitted material in confidence.

Acknowledgement of sources

Reviewers must ensure that authors have acknowledged all sources of data used in the research. Any statement that an observation, derivation, or argument had been previously reported should be accompanied by the relevant citation. A reviewer should also call to the editors’ attention ahny substantial similarity or overlap between the manuscript under consideration and any other published article of which they have personal knowledge.

Standards of objectivity

Review of submitted manuscripts should be conducted objectively. The reviewers will express their views clearly with supporting arguments. Personal criticism of the author is inappropriate. Promptness: If a reviewer believes that it is not possible for him/her to review the manuscript within the designated guidelines or within stipulated time, he/she should notify the editors, so that the accurate and timely review can be ensured.

Conflict of interest

All reviewers should have no conflict of interest with respect to the research, the authors and/or the funding bodies.
Visit COPE to learn out more about basic principles to which peer reviewers should adhere.

All unpublished manuscripts are confidential documents. If we invite you to review an article and you choose to discuss the manuscript with a colleague, please remind them of the confidential nature of the paper and acknowledge their input in your review. You will also be asked to give your name and position, and any relevant competing interests in your report on any article we send you.

Reviewer’s score sheet

1- Major compulsory revisions:
The author must respond to these before a decision on publication can be reached. For example, additional necessary experiments or controls, statistical mistakes, errors in interpretation.

2- Minor essential revisions:
The author can be trusted to make these. For example, missing labels on figures, the wrong use of a term, spelling mistakes.

3- Discretionary revisions:
These are recommendations for improvement which the author can choose to ignore. For example clarifications, data that would be useful but not essential.

4- Level of interest:

  • An article of importance in its field
  • An article whose findings is important to those with closely related research interests
  • An article of limited interest

5- Assessment of the manuscript:

  • Accept without revision
  • Accept after discretionary revisions (which the authors can choose to ignore)
  • Accept after minor essential revisions (which the authors can be trusted to make)
  • Unable to decide on acceptance or rejection until the authors have responded to the major compulsory revisions
  • Reject as not sufficiently sound

6- Declaration of competing interests

Please complete a declaration of competing interests, considering the following questions:

  • Have you in the past five years received reimbursements, fees, funding, or salary from an organization that may in any way gain or lose financially from the publication of this manuscript, either now or in the future?
  • Do you hold any stocks or shares in an organization that may in any way gain or lose financially from the publication of this manuscript, either now or in the future?
  • Do you hold or are you currently applying for any patents relating to the content of the manuscript? Have you received reimbursements, fees, funding, or salary from an organization that holds or has applied for patents relating to the content of the manuscript?
  • Do you have any other financial competing interests?
  • Do you have any non-financial competing interests in relation to this paper?

If you can answer NO to all of the above, write ‘I declare that I have no competing interests‘.

Up-dated September 1, 2016

Responding to a Request to Serve as a Reviewer

You will receive an e-mail that includes the manuscript abstract from an AJBM asking you to serve as a reviewer. The e-mail includes links with which to accept or decline the invitation. When you click (Agree) on the e-mail invitation you will receive an e-mail with a link to the AJBM website with full text of manuscript, and complete the review-scoring.

American Journal of Biomedicine © 2017 Frontier Theme