Reviewer Guidelines

Journal of the Medical Sciences (Berkala Ilmu Kedokteran)/JMedSci is committed to upholding the highest standards for manuscript submissions. All manuscripts submitted to our journals undergo rigorous and thorough peer-review by experts in their respective fields. The JMedSci editorial team identifies potential reviewers by assessing their expertise in research fields relevant to the manuscript under consideration. Your expertise is invaluable in ensuring the quality and relevance of the articles we publish. To facilitate the review process, we have created the following guidelines for our reviewers.


Reviewer Responsibilities:

As a reviewer for a scientific journal, your responsibilities are integral to maintaining the quality and integrity of the review process. The following are the key responsibilities of a reviewer:

  • Manuscript Evaluation: Assess the manuscript's relevance to the journal's scope, academic quality, novelty, and potential impact on the field. Consider the validity and robustness of the methodology, the clarity of the results, and the significance of the conclusions.
  • Constructive Feedback: Provide detailed, impartial, and constructive feedback to assist authors in improving their manuscripts. Highlight the strengths and weaknesses of the study, suggest areas for improvement, and recommend additional experiments or analyses, if necessary.
  • Timely Review: Complete your review within the specified time frame, typically three weeks. If unable to meet the deadline, notify the editor as soon as possible and provide an updated timeline.
  • Communicate with the Editor: Maintain open communication with the editor, providing updates on your progress, and promptly addressing any questions or concerns that may arise during the review process.
  • Recommendation: Based on your evaluation, provide a recommendation to the editor regarding the manuscript's suitability for publication. Your recommendation should be supported by your assessment of the manuscript and should fall within one of the following categories: accept as is, accept with minor revisions, accept with major revisions, reject with a recommendation to resubmit, or outright reject.

By adhering to these responsibilities, you play a crucial role in upholding the quality and integrity of the scientific review process, ultimately contributing to the advancement of knowledge in your field.


Ethical Obligations:

As a reviewer, you play a critical role in upholding the integrity of the scholarly review process. Adhering to the following ethical obligations is essential for maintaining the quality and credibility of our journal:

  • Fairness: Evaluate manuscripts impartially, focusing on their scientific merit, originality, and relevance to the journal's scope. Avoid personal bias or discrimination based on the author's gender, race, nationality, religious beliefs, or institutional affiliation.
  • Confidentiality: Preserve the confidentiality of the manuscripts you review by not sharing or discussing them with unauthorized individuals. Refrain from using any information from the manuscript for personal gain or advantage.
  • Citation and Attribution: Ensure that all sources are appropriately cited and credited in the manuscript. If you identify instances of plagiarism, self-plagiarism, or other unethical practices, report them to the editor.
  • Conflict of Interest: Ensure that no conflict of interest affects your impartiality in evaluating the manuscript. These may include personal, financial, or professional relationships with the authors or their institutions. If a conflict arises, inform the editor and withdraw from the review process.
  • Reporting Ethical Concerns: Be vigilant about possible ethical issues, such as plagiarism, data fabrication, or improper citation practices. If you detect any ethical violations, inform the editor immediately.

By adhering to these ethical obligations, you contribute to maintaining the integrity, quality, and credibility of the scholarly review process, promoting the advancement of knowledge in your discipline.


Evaluation Criteria:

As a reviewer for our journal, you are tasked with assessing manuscripts based on several critical aspects. The following evaluation criteria are designed to help you maintain consistency and fairness in your review process:

  • Relevance and Scope: Determine if the manuscript aligns with the journal's scope and if it addresses a topic of interest to our readership.
  • Originality and Novelty: Assess the manuscript for originality, ensuring that it presents new and innovative ideas or findings that contribute to the existing body of knowledge in the field.
  • Methodology and Design: Examine the research methods and study design employed in the manuscript. Evaluate their appropriateness, rigor, and thoroughness, as well as the validity and reliability of the results obtained.
  • Data Analysis and Presentation: Review the data analysis and presentation, ensuring that the results are clearly and logically presented. Check for proper use of statistical methods, interpretation of findings, and identification of potential limitations.
  • Clarity and Organization: Assess the clarity and organization of the manuscript, including the logical flow of ideas, coherence of arguments, and overall readability. Identify areas that may require further explanation, revision, or reorganization.
  • Language and Style: Review the manuscript for language usage, grammar, punctuation, and style. Ensure that the manuscript adheres to the journal's formatting guidelines and is written in clear and concise academic language.
  • Citations and References: Verify that all sources are accurately cited and referenced according to the journal's citation style. Look for any instances of plagiarism or self-plagiarism and report them to the editor.
  • Ethical Considerations: Evaluate the manuscript for compliance with ethical standards, such as the proper conduct of human or animal research, informed consent, authorship attribution, and disclosure of conflicts of interest.
  • Significance and Impact: Assess the overall significance and potential impact of the manuscript within the field. Consider whether the manuscript presents valuable insights, advances understanding, or has practical applications.

By using these evaluation criteria, you can ensure that the manuscripts you review are assessed fairly and consistently, contributing to the overall quality and credibility of our journal.


Reviewer Recommendations:

Based on your evaluation, recommend one of the following:

  • Accept without revision
  • Accept with minor revisions
  • Major revisions required
  • Reject

Ensure your recommendation is supported by your evaluation and constructive criticism. Note that the final decision on the manuscript is made by the editorial board, and your recommendation might not be reflected in this decision. Remember to complete your review within the specified time frame and keep the editor informed of any potential delays or concerns that may arise during the review process.


Submitting Your Review:

Once you have completed your review, submit it through the JMedSci online submission system. Your review should include:

  • A summary of your major findings and overall impression of the manuscript.
  • A detailed assessment of each evaluation criterion listed above.
  • Constructive feedback, suggestions for improvement, and any additional comments.

Remember to maintain your anonymity throughout the review process. If you have provided comments directly on the manuscript file, ensure they are anonymized and focus on the content rather than the layout or formatting.


Reviewer Acknowledgment and Recognition

JMedSci greatly appreciates the time and effort put forth by our reviewers. We appreciate your expertise and dedication to ensuring the quality and relevance of the articles published in our journal. In recognition of your dedication, we will gladly acknowledge your contributions and provide certificates of appreciation upon request.