Guidance for Peer Reviewers

Post update: 1/4/2025

The Advanced Journal of Biomedicine & Medicine (AJBM) is committed to maintaining the highest standards of peer review in accordance with the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) guidelines and international best practices. Reviewers are entrusted with safeguarding the integrity, quality, and ethical standards of the scientific record. The following guidelines outline reviewer responsibilities and expectations.

1. Confidentiality

  • All manuscripts, supplementary materials, and reviewer comments must be treated as strictly confidential.

  • Do not share, copy, or discuss manuscripts with others without prior written permission from the editor.

  • Confidentiality extends beyond the review process, even after a decision has been made.

2. Objectivity and Constructive Feedback

  • Provide fair, balanced, and evidence-based evaluations.

  • Critiques should focus on the manuscript’s scientific content, originality, methodology, and conclusions—not the author(s).

  • Personal criticism, unsubstantiated claims, or biased comments are unacceptable.

  • Offer specific, actionable suggestions to improve the manuscript.

3. Conflict of Interest

  • Disclose any financial, institutional, personal, or academic conflicts of interest that could influence your judgment.

  • Recuse yourself if you cannot provide an impartial review.

  • Avoid reviewing manuscripts authored by close collaborators, competitors, or colleagues from your institution.

4. Timeliness

  • Complete reviews within the agreed timeframe (standard: 21 days).

  • If you cannot meet the deadline or lack the expertise to review the manuscript, notify the editor immediately.

  • Timely feedback ensures a fair and efficient editorial process for authors.

5. Ethical Responsibilities

  • Report any suspected ethical concerns, including:

    • Plagiarism or duplicate publication

    • Data fabrication or falsification

    • Unethical research involving human participants or animals

  • Alert the editor to potential research or publication misconduct, following COPE flowcharts.

6. Review Format and Expectations

  • Use the journal’s structured review form or template.

  • Suggested sections include:
    a. Summary of the manuscript
    b. Strengths and weaknesses
    c. Specific comments on methodology, data analysis, and interpretation
    d. Recommendations for improvement

  • Reviews should be clear, respectful, and ideally between 500–1000 words to provide substantive feedback.

7. Evaluation Criteria

Reviewers should assess whether the manuscript demonstrates:

  • Originality – Novelty and contribution to the field.

  • Scientific Rigor – Appropriateness and clarity of methodology.

  • Validity of Results – Whether findings are supported by data.

  • Interpretation and Discussion – Balanced analysis, limitations, and context with existing literature.

  • References – Accuracy, relevance, and completeness.

8. Communication with the Editorial Team

  • Direct all questions or concerns to the editor.

  • Do not contact authors directly under any circumstances.

  • Provide clear, reasoned recommendations (Accept, Minor Revision, Major Revision, Reject).

9. Post-Review Responsibilities

  • Be available to clarify or expand upon your review if requested by the editor.

  • Maintain confidentiality regarding the manuscript and decision outcome.

  • Assist with re-reviews if a revised manuscript is resubmitted.