Peer reviewers play a vital role in ensuring the integrity of the works of the scholars. The peer review process depends mainly on the trust and willing participation of the scholarly community, requiring every individual to be ethical & responsible. Peer reviewers play a pivotal and critical part in the peer review process, but they should also be guided properly according to the ethical rules & regulations. Our journal is obliged to provide transparent policies for peer review, and reviewers have an obligation to conduct reviews in an ethical and responsible way. Clear communication between the journal and the reviewers is essential to facilitate consistent, fair and timely review. There are many types of peer-review models, JRMC uses the double blind model.
Reviewers should possess in-depth knowledge of the subject area relevant to the submitted manuscript, backed by a history of publishing in that field. They must hold a postgraduate degree (PhD, FCPS, MPhil, or equivalent) or have equivalent research experience in a relevant medical or scientific discipline. Additionally, reviewers should have experience in peer-review processes, either as reviewers for other reputable journals or through their own publication records. Active engagement in research, clinical practice, or academic activities is expected to ensure that reviewers bring current and relevant insights to their evaluations. They must have no history of academic misconduct or ethical violations in research or publication. Reviewers are selected based on recommendations from editors, nominations by the editorial board, or through their expressions of interest. The journal may also invite reviewers based on their expertise and publication record. Reviewers’ performance will be evaluated periodically, focusing on the quality, thoroughness, and timeliness of their reviews. Those who consistently provide high-quality reviews may be considered for roles such as associate editors or editorial board members.
Fill out the Peer Review Form and submit your latest updated CV at junior.manager@journalrmc.com if you wish to become a peer reviewer for us. An acknowledgement in this regard will be sent to you after the form and CV are received.
Agreeing to review:
When approached to review, agree to review only if you have the necessary expertise to assess the manuscript and can be unbiased in your assessment.
Initial steps:
Read the manuscript, supplementary data files, and ancillary material thoroughly & get back to the journal if anything is not clear & request for any missing or incomplete items. You should not contact the authors directly.
Confidentiality:
Respect of the confidentiality should be maintained & refrain from using information obtained during the peer review process for your own or another’s an advantage, or to disadvantage or discredit others (e.g. see COPE Case 14-06: Possible breach of reviewer confidentiality).
Bias and competing interests:
Declare all potential competing, or conflicting, interests. It is important to remain unbiased to all considerations related to the nationality, religious or political beliefs, gender, or other characteristics of the authors & origins of a manuscript.
Suspicion of ethics violations:
Any irregularities concerning research and publication ethics, should be reported to the journal.
Assessing Research Gap and Impact:
Reviewers play a critical role in ensuring the clarity and relevance of the research gap. They should evaluate whether the gap is well-defined and supported by appropriate literature. Reviewers are encouraged to provide specific feedback, suggesting improvements or additional references if the gap identification is unclear or insufficient.
AI policy:
Reviewers should not upload any material or part of any material that may be generated from artificial intelligence tools, even if it's for the purpose of improving the language and readability.
Artificial intelligence tools should not be used by the reviewers in any kind of assistance in the review of the manuscript.
The reviewer is responsible and accountable for the content of the review.
Format:
Follow the sections in the peer review form mailed to you. If a particular file needs to be attached, attach it with the form or write to senior.manager@journalrmc.com. Be objective and constructive in your review, providing feedback that will help the authors to improve their manuscript. Peer Review Form (Appendix 9)
Appropriate feedback:
Give a fair, honest, and unbiased assessment of the strengths and weaknesses of the manuscript to the editor.
Language and style:
Do not attempt to rewrite it to your own preferred style if it is basically sound and clear; however, you can always suggest changes that can improve clarity.
Suggestions for further work:
Reviewer should comment and explain what additional analyses would clarify the work submitted, or if any other changes are needed in the manuscript.
Accountability:
Prepare the report by yourself. Refrain from making unfair negative comments. Don’t intentionally prolong the review process, either by delaying the submission of your review or by requesting unnecessary additional information from the journal or authors’ work that is mentioned in the manuscript.
What to consider after peer review?
If feasible, try to accommodate requests from journals to review revisions or resubmissions of manuscripts you have reviewed previously. Thank you for being part of the peer review team of the Journal of Rawalpindi Medical College.