Instructions for Reviewers

Role of Reviewers

Reviewers provide expert assessment to help the editor make informed decisions and support authors in improving
the quality of their manuscripts.

• Assess scientific merit, originality, and clarity
• Comment on strengths and weaknesses
• Recommend acceptance, revision, or rejection

Pre-Review Checklist

Before accepting a review invitation, reviewers should:

• verify they have relevant expertise
• ensure no conflicts of interest exist
• confirm availability to complete the review within the requested timeframe

Reviewers must decline invitations if they feel unqualified or unable to provide a timely, fair evaluation.

Preparing the Review Report

Reports should be clear, concise, respectful, and structured. A suggested format includes:

• Summary: Briefly outline the purpose and findings.
• Major Comments: Identify critical issues requiring attention.
• Minor Comments: Highlight small corrections or clarifications.
• Recommendation: Accept / Minor Revision / Major Revision / Reject.

Evaluation Criteria

Reviewers are asked to evaluate manuscripts based on:

• • Scientific originality and novelty.
  • Clarity and accuracy of the research question.
  • Appropriateness of study design and methodology.
  • Ethical soundness and compliance with research standards.
  • Statistical rigor and interpretation of data.
  • Relevance to clinical or scientific practice.
  • Quality of writing, structure, and referencing.

Confidentiality & Ethical Practice

All manuscripts under review are confidential. Reviewers must:

• not share or discuss the manuscript outside the review process,
• not store or reuse manuscript content without permission,
• refrain from using unpublished information for personal gain.

AJBM follows COPE ethical guidelines for peer reviewers.

Conflicts of Interest

Reviewers must declare conflicts of interest relating to:

• personal or professional relationships with authors
• institutional rivalry or collaboration
• financial interests

Reviewers should decline a manuscript review if conflicts impair impartial judgment.

Constructive Feedback Guidelines

Reviewers are expected to:

• be respectful and objective,
• focus on scientific content rather than author identity,
• provide enough detail to guide revision,
• avoid dismissive or insulting language.

Constructive suggestions improve manuscript quality and foster scholarly development.

Review Timeline

• Initial editorial screening: 2–3 weeks
• Peer review: 4–6 weeks
• First decision: within 8 weeks of submission
• Publication (after acceptance): within 2–3 weeks

Timely responses enable efficient editorial processing and fairness to authors.

How to Submit a Review

Reviews should be submitted through the journal’s manuscript management system:
AJBM Editorial Manager

If difficulties arise, reviewers may contact the editorial office:
Email: editorial@ajbm.net