Guide for Reviewers
The Journal of the Dow University of Health Sciences (JDUHS) believes that peer review is the foundation for safeguarding the quality and integrity of scientific and scholarly research. JDUHS fully appreciates and is very thankful to all reviewers for contributing on a voluntary basis, in addition to their busy academic, research and other official duties.
This guidance is intended to inform the reviewers of the peer review process and ethical responsibilities when reviewing the JDUHS manuscript.
The Review Process
- JDUHS follows a double-blind peer review, which means that the reviewers cannot identify the authors, nor can the authors identify the reviewers.
- All contents of the journal are subject to peer review, including a student research paper and a letter to the editor.
- To save the authors’ and reviewers’ time, only those manuscripts most likely to meet JDUHS editorial criteria will be sent out for peer-review.
- The peer reviewer’s role is to advise editors on individual manuscripts to revise, accept, or reject a manuscript.
- The editorial office is responsible for the final decision to accept or reject a manuscript based on the reviewers’ recommendations.
Accepting an Invitation to Review
The journal invites the reviewers based on the judgment that the reviewer is an expert in a certain area. The journal judged this from the reviewer’s previous publication record. It is the responsibility of the reviewer to accept an invitation to review a manuscript considering the following points:
- Manuscript matches with the reviewer’s expertise: If the manuscript is too far outside the reviewer’s area, he/she should decline to review it.
- Time: If review comments cannot be submitted within the 14 days of the review period, please decline to review or ask for an extension of the review period. Reviewers may recommend any other potential reviewers who may be able to more thoroughly review the manuscript on the basis of their expertise and experience.
- Any potential conflicts of interest: In case of any conflicts of interest, the reviewer should decline to review. If the reviewer still wishes to review, the conflicts of interest should be specifically disclosed.
How to review the manuscripts
A structured reviewer’s proforma will be provided to the reviewer to judge the originality, novelty, ethical consideration, scientific soundness, and overall priority/potential for publication of the manuscript.
- As a peer reviewer of the submitted manuscript, see whether the questions asked on the proforma are being answered in order to improve the quality of the article being published.
- Reviewers may also send specific comments to authors or editors separately. In comments, the reviewers can mention the manuscript’s strengths or any problems that lead to the belief that the manuscript should not be published or that it would need to be corrected to make it publishable.
- Authors may also use the manuscript file and give their comments using “Track Change” options in MS word or they may print the manuscript and mark their comments for the authors.
- In case of rejection, add a summary for the author explaining the rationale/reasons for rejection of the manuscript.
- Reviewers are advised to keep a copy of the review in files as the manuscript may be returned to the reviewer for a second review. The reviewer may need this copy to evaluate the author’s responses to the comments.
- Provide all comments to the author anonymously.
Join as a Reviewer
Reviewers are usually invited by the editorial office. Anyone wishing to volunteer as a reviewer may contact the editorial office (jduhs@duhs.edu.pk) and submit an updated CV. The reviewers are selected on the basis of their expertise and experience.
