The Journal of Community Medicine and Health Sciences (JCMHS) relies on the expertise of reviewers to ensure that every article meets the highest academic, ethical, and scientific standards. These Reviewer Guidelines outline the responsibilities, ethical expectations, and best practices for peer reviewers contributing to the journal’s quality assurance process. All reviewers are expected to follow these standards in alignment with the COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers and ICMJE Recommendations.

Peer reviewers serve as the foundation of academic quality — ensuring that published research is accurate, credible, and ethically sound.

1. Purpose of Peer Review

Peer review is a vital step in the publication process that ensures the integrity and quality of scholarly communication. The objectives are to:

Evaluate the originality, methodology, and contribution of submitted research.
Provide constructive feedback to improve the manuscript’s clarity and rigor.
Assist editors in making informed, unbiased publication decisions.
Safeguard the journal’s ethical and scientific standards.

2. Reviewer Responsibilities

All reviewers must adhere to the following core responsibilities:

Provide fair, objective, and timely reviews.
Maintain confidentiality regarding all manuscripts.
Disclose any potential conflicts of interest.
Avoid personal criticism and provide feedback that helps authors improve their work.
Recommend acceptance, revision, or rejection with clear justification.

3. Confidentiality and Data Protection

Manuscripts received for review are confidential documents. Reviewers must not share, discuss, or use any part of the content for personal or research purposes. Review materials must be deleted after the review process concludes. All reviewer activities must comply with the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) and the journal’s Privacy Statement.

4. Conflict of Interest Declaration

Reviewers must immediately notify the editor if a potential conflict exists, such as:

Personal or professional relationships with the authors.
Financial interests linked to the subject of the research.
Competing publications on similar topics.

If a conflict exists, the reviewer should decline the assignment to maintain objectivity and integrity.

5. Review Criteria

When evaluating a manuscript, reviewers should consider the following aspects:

Relevance: Does the manuscript fit the aims and scope of the journal?
Originality: Does it provide new insights or findings?
Methodology: Is the study design appropriate and robust?
Ethics: Are ethical approvals and informed consents clearly stated?
Clarity: Is the manuscript well-structured and understandable?
References: Are they appropriate, current, and relevant?

6. Review Structure and Submission

Reviews should be submitted through the journal’s online submission system within the assigned timeframe (typically 14–21 days). The review report should include:

A brief summary of the manuscript.
Major comments addressing scientific content and structure.
Minor comments suggesting language or formatting improvements.
A clear recommendation (Accept, Minor Revision, Major Revision, Reject).

7. Tone and Professional Conduct

Feedback should be courteous, professional, and focused on scientific content. Reviewers must refrain from using dismissive or offensive language. Constructive criticism helps authors improve their work and strengthens the overall quality of the journal.

8. Timeliness and Communication

Reviewers should complete reviews promptly and notify the editor immediately if an extension is required. Consistent timeliness supports efficient publication workflows and maintains author satisfaction.

9. Ethical Standards in Reviewing

Reviewers must not:

Engage in plagiarism or reuse ideas from manuscripts under review.
Disclose manuscript information to unauthorized individuals.
Delay reviews intentionally to benefit competing publications.

10. Detection of Ethical Issues

If reviewers suspect plagiarism, data fabrication, or unethical research practices, they must report their concerns confidentially to the editor. JCMHS follows COPE flowcharts to address such issues.

11. Confidential Use of Unpublished Data

Unpublished data, hypotheses, or methodologies from manuscripts must never be used for a reviewer’s own research or shared with third parties without written consent from the journal’s Editor-in-Chief.

12. Reviewer Recognition

To acknowledge reviewers’ contributions, JCMHS may issue certificates, vouchers, or annual appreciation mentions (with consent). Reviewers can also link verified reviews to their Publons or ORCID profiles.

13. Anonymity in the Peer Review Process

JCMHS follows a double-blind peer-review model. Reviewers should not attempt to identify authors and must maintain anonymity. Similarly, authors are not informed of reviewer identities.

14. Handling Manuscripts Outside Reviewer Expertise

If a manuscript falls outside a reviewer’s expertise, the reviewer should decline the assignment and, if possible, suggest alternative experts who may provide a more accurate evaluation.

15. Reviewing Revisions

When authors submit revised manuscripts, reviewers may be asked to re-evaluate them. The goal is to ensure that previous concerns have been adequately addressed and that revisions improve the manuscript’s quality.

16. Reviewer Accountability

All review reports must reflect honest, evidence-based assessments. Editors may evaluate reviewer performance and remove those who consistently fail to meet ethical or quality standards.

17. Diversity and Inclusivity in Peer Review

JCMHS values diversity in its reviewer community and encourages participation from a broad range of disciplines, geographic regions, and gender backgrounds to promote inclusive scholarly dialogue.

18. Communication with Editors

All reviewer communications must be conducted through the journal’s editorial system. Reviewers must not contact authors directly. Any questions or technical issues should be directed to [email protected].

19. Reviewer Misconduct

Misconduct by reviewers—such as breaches of confidentiality, unprofessional behavior, or data misuse—will result in removal from the reviewer database and potential reporting to affiliated institutions.

20. Continuous Training and Improvement

The journal provides periodic reviewer training and resources on effective peer review, ethics, and bias awareness. Reviewers are encouraged to participate in COPE or Publons Academy programs for ongoing skill development.

21. How to Accept or Decline a Review Invitation

Upon receiving an invitation, reviewers should promptly confirm their ability to complete the review within the deadline. If unavailable, they should decline courteously and may suggest alternative reviewers with relevant expertise.

22. Confidential Archiving of Reviews

All review reports are stored confidentially in the editorial system and are not shared externally. Reviews may be used for training or audit purposes but only after anonymization.

23. Reviewer Feedback to Editors

Reviewers are encouraged to include confidential comments for the editor, offering insights that may guide the editorial decision, but these remarks should not be disclosed to authors unless appropriate.

24. Reviewer Reward and Recognition Policy

JCMHS acknowledges reviewers’ dedication through:

Official certificates of appreciation.
Discount vouchers on future APCs.
Annual acknowledgment on the journal website.
Eligibility for “Outstanding Reviewer” recognition each year.

25. Contact and Support

For reviewer-related queries or assistance, please contact:

Email: [email protected]
Subject: “Reviewer Support – [Manuscript ID]”
Response Time: 3–5 business days

“A responsible reviewer upholds the integrity of science by ensuring that research stands on the foundation of evidence and ethics.”