Reviewer Guidelines

Peer review is the cornerstone of the scientific publishing process. The Indo Eurasian Journal of Medical Sciences (IEJMS) relies on the expertise, objectivity and dedication of our reviewers to maintain the highest standards of clinical and scientific rigour.

IEJMS operates a double-blind peer review system. Both the reviewers' and the authors' identities are concealed from each other to ensure unbiased evaluation.

The following guidelines are designed to help you provide constructive, thorough and ethical evaluations of submitted manuscripts.

1. Initial considerations

Before accepting an invitation to review, please consider the following:

• Expertise. Does the manuscript align with your specific clinical or scientific expertise? If you feel unqualified to evaluate the core methodology or clinical implications, decline the invitation and, if possible, suggest alternative reviewers.
• Time commitment. Can you complete the review within the requested timeframe of 21 days? Prompt peer review is critical to advancing medical literature. If you need an extension, contact the handling editor immediately.
• Conflict of interest. You must declare any potential competing interests. Decline the review if you have recently collaborated with the authors (where their identity is known or suspected), work at the same institution, have a financial interest in the research outcomes, or hold strong personal beliefs that preclude an objective assessment. See the Conflict of Interest Policy.

2. Confidentiality and AI policy

The manuscript is a privileged, confidential document.

• Strict confidentiality. You must not discuss the manuscript with anyone, nor share the data, text or figures. You may not use the information within the manuscript for your own research until it is published.
• Use of artificial intelligence. Do not upload the manuscript, or any part of it, into generative AI tools to assist in writing your review. This constitutes a breach of confidentiality and copyright. Reviews must be the reviewer's own original analysis. See the AI Use Policy.

3. Evaluating the manuscript

When assessing the manuscript, focus your evaluation on clinical relevance, methodological soundness and ethical compliance.

Scientific and clinical merit

• Does the study address a clear, original and important question in medicine or public health?
• Are the conclusions supported by the data, and do they add meaningfully to the existing literature?
• Is the clinical relevance or translational potential clearly articulated?

Methodology and reporting standards

• Is the study design appropriate for the research question?
• Are the materials and methods detailed enough to allow independent replication?
• Did the authors follow the appropriate EQUATOR Network reporting guidelines (CONSORT for RCTs, STROBE for observational studies, PRISMA for systematic reviews, CARE for case reports)?
• Are the statistical analyses appropriate, correctly performed and fully reported, including exact p-values and 95% confidence intervals?

Ethics and integrity

• For human or animal studies, is there a clear statement regarding institutional ethics committee approval?
• Is there explicit confirmation that informed consent was obtained from participants?
• For clinical trials, is the prospective trial registration number provided and verifiable?
• Are there any concerns regarding data fabrication, image manipulation or plagiarism? Alert the editor in the confidential comments section if you suspect misconduct.

Presentation and clarity

• Is the manuscript clearly written, logically structured and accessible to a general medical audience?
• Are tables and figures necessary, clear and accurately labelled? Do they duplicate data presented in the text?
• Are the references current, relevant and not overly reliant on self-citation?

4. Structuring your review report

Your review should be divided into two sections within the Editorial Manager portal.

A. Confidential comments to the editor

Use this section to state your bottom-line recommendation clearly. You should also use this space to raise any confidential concerns about ethical misconduct, conflicts of interest or suspected image manipulation. These comments are not seen by the authors.

B. Comments to the authors

This section must be entirely free of any identifying information about yourself. Structure your feedback constructively:

• Brief summary. Start with a short paragraph summarising the study's main objective, findings and overall significance. This demonstrates to the authors that you have understood their work.
• Major comments. Detail any significant flaws in the study design, methodology, statistical analysis or interpretation of results. Number your points for clarity.
• Minor comments. List specific, actionable corrections: missing references, unclear phrasing, table formatting issues or typographical errors.

5. Making a recommendation

You will be asked to select one of the following:

• Accept. The manuscript is scientifically sound, ethically compliant and ready for publication in its current form, or requires only trivial typographical corrections.
• Minor revision. The study is fundamentally sound but requires specific, relatively straightforward modifications: clarifying a methodological detail, adding a missing limitation, updating references.
• Major revision. The manuscript has significant potential but requires substantial work before it can be considered for publication. This may involve re-analysing data, heavily rewriting sections, or providing clearer justification for conclusions.
• Reject. The manuscript is fatally flawed. Common reasons include unethical research practices, fundamentally flawed methodology, lack of originality, or conclusions entirely unsupported by the data.

6. Reviewer recognition

IEJMS deeply values the time and effort dedicated by our peer reviewers.

• Reviewers can opt in to receive credit for their work on platforms such as Web of Science (formerly Publons) or ORCID.
• Outstanding reviewers are periodically recognised by the journal and may be invited to join the Editorial Advisory Board.

Need assistance?

If you require technical help with the review portal, or need to discuss a manuscript confidentially with an editor, contact the editorial office at managing_editor@iejms.scienceroot.in.