| Post update: January 19, 2024 |
Reviewer Guidelines for the American Journal of Biomedicine
==========================================================
The American Journal of Biomedicine (AJBM) is committed to maintaining the highest standards of peer review in line with the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) guidelines. Reviewers play a critical role in ensuring the quality, integrity, and ethical standards of the journal's publications. These guidelines outline the expectations and responsibilities of reviewers.
1. Confidentiality
------------------
- All manuscripts and supplementary materials must be treated as confidential documents.
- Do not share, discuss, or disclose any part of the manuscript with anyone outside the review process without prior permission from the editor.
2. Objectivity and Constructive Feedback
----------------------------------------
- Provide objective, fair, and constructive feedback to authors.
- Avoid personal criticism or biased comments.
- Focus on the content of the manuscript, including its originality, methodology, results, and conclusions.
3. Conflict of Interest
-----------------------
- Disclose any potential conflicts of interest (e.g., financial, institutional, or personal relationships) that may affect your ability to provide an unbiased review.
- Recuse yourself from the review process if a conflict of interest exists.
4. Timeliness
-------------
- Complete the review within the agreed timeframe. Authors are usually notified within 2-3 months about the acceptability of their manuscript. Notify the editor immediately if you are unable to meet the deadline or if the manuscript falls outside your area of expertise.
5. Ethical Considerations
-------------------------
- Report any ethical concerns, such as:
a. Plagiarism
b. Data fabrication or falsification
c. Ethical violations in research involving humans or animals
- Ensure the manuscript adheres to ethical research standards and guidelines.
6. Review Format
----------------
- Use the provided review form or template to structure your feedback.
- Address the following sections:
a. Summary of the manuscript
b. Strengths and weaknesses
c. Specific comments on methodology, data analysis, and interpretation
d. Recommendations for improvement
7. Manuscript Evaluation Criteria
---------------------------------
- Originality: Is the manuscript novel and significant?
- Methodology: Are the methods appropriate and well-described?
- Results: Are the results clearly presented and supported by data?
- Discussion: Does the discussion address the study's implications and limitations?
- References: Are the references relevant, up-to-date, and properly cited?
8. Communication with the Editor
--------------------------------
- Direct any questions or concerns about the manuscript to the editor.
- Do not contact the authors directly.
9. Post-Review Responsibilities
-------------------------------
- Be available to answer any follow-up questions from the editor.
- Maintain confidentiality even after the review process is complete.
10. Acknowledgment and Recognition
-----------------------------------
- Reviewers will be acknowledged for their contributions in the journal's annual report.
- Outstanding reviewers may receive certificates of recognition or other incentives.
Responsibility for the Reviewers
- Reviewers should keep all information regarding papers confidential and treat them as privileged information.
- Reviews should be conducted objectively, with no personal criticism of the author. No self-knowledge of the author(s) must affect their comments and decision.
- Reviewers should express their views clearly with supporting arguments in 500 to 1000 words.
- Reviewers may identify relevant published work that has not been cited by the authors.
- Reviewers should also call to the Editor in Chief's attention any substantial similarity or overlap between the manuscript under consideration and any other published paper of which they have personal knowledge.
- Reviewers should not review manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies, or institutions connected to the papers.
- The reviewer is responsible for both the author and the editor in regard to the manuscript. Peer review is the principal mechanism by which the quality of research is judged. Most funding decisions in science and the academic advancement of scientists are based on peer-reviewed publications.
Peer reviewer responsibilities towards the author
- Providing written, unbiased feedback in a timely manner on the scholarly merits and the scientific value of the work
- Comments given by the reviewers should be clear and relevant to the subject and accurate which creates interest to the authors.
- Personal & Financial conflicts must be avoided.
- The review process should be confidentially maintained.
Peer reviewer responsibilities towards the editor
- Notifying the editor immediately if unable to review in a timely manner and providing the names of other potential reviewers if possible.
- Following the editor's written instructions on the journal's expectations of the submitted work.
- Determining scientific merit, originality, and scope of the work; indicating ways to improve it and giving decisions based on rating.
- Provide a clear and levelheaded reason for giving decisions based on common ethics.
- Personal & Financial conflicts should be alerted.
- Stave off direct contact with the author without editor's permission.