Reviewer's Responsibilities
The Journal of Community Medicine and Health Sciences (JCMHS) values the essential contribution of reviewers in maintaining academic excellence and scientific integrity. These Reviewer’s Responsibilities define the ethical and professional standards expected from all reviewers engaged in the journal’s double-blind peer-review process, in accordance with the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE), and Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ) principles.
1. Role of Reviewers
Reviewers are independent experts who assist editors in evaluating the quality, validity, and significance of submitted manuscripts. Their assessments contribute to editorial decisions, guide authors in improving their work, and uphold the overall credibility of the publication process.
2. Objectivity and Impartiality
Reviewers must assess manuscripts objectively, without bias related to nationality, institutional affiliation, gender, or personal beliefs. Reviews should be based solely on scientific merit, data accuracy, and relevance to the field of community medicine and health sciences.
3. Confidentiality
Manuscripts received for review are confidential documents. Reviewers must not share, discuss, or use any part of the material for personal gain or research purposes. All communications should occur exclusively through the editorial office or the online submission system. Review materials must be destroyed or deleted once the review process concludes.
4. Conflict of Interest
Reviewers must immediately disclose any potential conflicts of interest that may compromise their objectivity, including:
- Financial relationships related to the study or its sponsors.
- Collaborations or personal relationships with the authors.
- Competing research on the same topic.
If such conflicts exist, reviewers should decline the assignment promptly.
5. Ethical Evaluation
Reviewers should ensure that submitted manuscripts adhere to ethical research standards. Particular attention should be paid to:
- Ethical approval for human or animal studies.
- Informed consent documentation.
- Transparency in data handling and methodology.
- Avoidance of plagiarism and duplicate publication.
6. Quality and Constructiveness of Feedback
Reviews should be thorough, balanced, and constructive. Reviewers must clearly explain their assessments and provide actionable recommendations. Constructive feedback improves the manuscript’s scientific and linguistic quality and supports author development.
7. Timeliness and Professionalism
Reviewers must complete their reviews within the assigned timeframe, typically within 14–21 days. If delays are unavoidable, reviewers should inform the editorial office as soon as possible. Punctuality ensures fairness and maintains the journal’s publication schedule.
8. Reporting Misconduct or Errors
If reviewers detect signs of plagiarism, data fabrication, ethical breaches, or significant methodological errors, they must report these confidentially to the editor. The editorial team will handle such reports in accordance with COPE flowcharts.
9. Appropriate Use of Manuscript Content
Information obtained through the review process is confidential and cannot be reused or cited prior to publication. Reviewers must not exploit unpublished data for personal research or share it with others.
10. Review Report Structure
Each review should include the following components:
- Summary: Briefly describe the study’s aims and relevance.
- Major Comments: Address scientific soundness, design, and interpretation.
- Minor Comments: Suggest stylistic or clarity improvements.
- Recommendation: Choose from: Accept, Minor Revision, Major Revision, or Reject.
11. Communication Etiquette
Reviewers should communicate respectfully and professionally, avoiding personal remarks or inappropriate language. Comments should focus on improving the scientific content rather than judging authors personally.
12. Double-Blind Review Ethics
As JCMHS follows a double-blind review model, reviewers must not attempt to identify authors, nor should they reveal their identities to the authors. The editorial office ensures anonymity throughout the process.
13. Responsibility Toward Editors
Reviewers act as advisors to editors. Their role is to provide evidence-based assessments, not to make final acceptance decisions. Editors rely on reviewer input but retain full responsibility for publication decisions.
14. Handling Unqualified Reviews
If a manuscript’s subject area lies outside the reviewer’s expertise, they must decline the invitation or inform the editor immediately. Suggesting alternative qualified reviewers is encouraged and appreciated.
15. Adherence to Journal Policies
Reviewers must familiarize themselves with the journal’s Editorial Policies, Publication Ethics Policy, and Peer Review Process to ensure consistent evaluation standards.
16. Cultural and Ethical Sensitivity
Reviewers should respect cultural, ethical, and contextual diversity within submitted research. Critiques should remain free from discriminatory or culturally insensitive remarks.
17. Recognition and Credit
JCMHS acknowledges reviewers’ contributions through:
- Annual certificates of recognition.
- Eligibility for “Outstanding Reviewer” awards.
- Optional listing in yearly reviewer acknowledgments (with consent).
- Integration with Publons and ORCID for verified credit.
18. Post-Review Conduct
After submitting the review, reviewers should not engage in direct communication with authors. If new information arises or errors are noticed after submission, reviewers should promptly notify the editor.
19. Training and Mentorship
The journal encourages reviewers, particularly early-career researchers, to participate in training on ethical peer review. Mentorship by senior reviewers is welcomed, provided confidentiality is maintained and prior approval is obtained from the editor.
20. Misconduct and Sanctions
Instances of reviewer misconduct—such as breaching confidentiality, plagiarism, or biased evaluations—are taken seriously. The journal may remove such reviewers from its database and report misconduct to relevant institutions or professional bodies.
21. Reviewer Collaboration
Collaborative reviews (co-reviewing) are permitted only with prior editor approval. Junior researchers may assist senior reviewers for training purposes, provided confidentiality and authorship anonymity are preserved.
22. Continuous Quality Monitoring
The editorial team periodically evaluates reviewer performance based on timeliness, report quality, and adherence to ethical standards. Constructive feedback helps reviewers enhance their future contributions.
23. Reviewer’s Impact on Editorial Decisions
Editors carefully consider reviewer recommendations but retain full editorial discretion. Constructive, detailed reports significantly influence the decision-making process and uphold the quality of published research.
24. Global Standards and Compliance
- Complies with COPE’s “Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers.”
- Follows ICMJE recommendations for editorial collaboration.
- Adheres to DOAJ and OASPA standards for transparent peer review.
- Observes GDPR and related privacy laws.
25. Contact and Support
For reviewer-related queries, support, or training opportunities, please contact:
- Email: [email protected]
- Subject: “Reviewer Responsibility Inquiry – [Manuscript ID]”
- Response Time: within 3–5 business days
“A responsible reviewer safeguards the credibility of science by balancing fairness, precision, and ethical judgment.”