Information for Reviewers

Reviewing a manuscript written by a fellow scientist has always been considered as a privilege. However, it is for sure a time-consuming responsibility. Hence, the IJTMGH’s Editorial Board, authors, and audiences appreciate your willingness to accept this responsibility and your dedication. The IJTMGH adheres to a double-blind peer-review process which is rapid, fair, and ensures a high quality of articles published. In order to do so, the IJTMGH needs reviewers who can provide insightful and helpful comments on submitted manuscripts with a turnaround time of about 12 weeks. Maintaining IJTMGH as a high quality scientific journal depends on reviewers with a high level of expertise and an ability to be objective, fair, and insightful in their evaluation of manuscripts. We hope that the information provided here will help making your work easier. 

Purpose and Rewards of Reviewers

The opinions of the IJTMGH reviewers are extremely invaluable in helping the Editor in Chief and also the Editorial Board in making their decisions. For keeping up with the field and also getting new understandings which will improve the quality and value of your own studies, peer-reviewing will be a big help.

For appreciating your extreme service to the IJTMGH, your name will be written down in a list we publish on the webpage of the reviewers who have reviewed for the IJTMGH. Also, those reviewers who constantly exhibit excellent reviews and promptly respond to the editorial requests will be considered to be invited to the Editorial Board.

Reviewers’ Responsibilities

If IJTMGH’s Editor in Chief has invited you as a reviewer. Please consider the following:

  • Review manuscripts critically but constructively and prepare detailed comments about the manuscript to help authors improve their work
  • Review multiple versions of a manuscript if necessary
  • Provide any required information within established deadlines
  • Make recommendations to the editor in regards to the suitability of the manuscript for being published in the journal
  • Declare any potential conflicts of interest to the editor with respect to the authors or the content of a manuscript you are asked to review
  • Report any possible research misconducts
  • In case you cannot review the manuscript for any possible reason, suggest alternative reviewers
  • Treating the manuscript as a confidential document
  • Do not make any use of the work described in the manuscript
  • Do not directly communicate with authors, if somehow you identify the authors
  • Do not identify yourself to authors
  • Do not pass on the assigned manuscript to other reviewers
  • Ensure that the manuscript is of high quality and original work
  • Inform the editor if you find that the assigned manuscript is under consideration in any other publication to your knowledge
  • Write a review report in English only
  • Write a commentary for publication related to the reviewed manuscript

 What Should be Checked While Reviewing a Manuscript?

  • Novelty
  • Scientific reliability
  • Originality
  • Valuable contribution to the science
  • Adding new aspects to the existed field of study
  • Ethical issues
  • Structure of the article submitted and its relevance to authors’ guidelines
  • References provided to substantiate the content
  • Grammar, punctuation and spelling
  • Scientific writing
  • Scientific misconduct

Peer-Review Process

As part of the peer-review process, IJTMGH and all its reviewers abide to the confidentiality of manuscripts submitted to journal. In this regard, no information about manuscripts, including whether they have been received and are under review, their content and status in the review process, criticism by reviewers, and their ultimate fate is shared to anyone other than the authors and reviewers. Any further requests from third parties to use manuscripts and reviews for legal proceedings are strictly refused.

Also, reviewers are asked not to keep the manuscript for their own use and should destroy paper copies of manuscripts and delete electronic copies after submitting their reviews. It should also be noted that, rejected manuscripts will be kept in the editorial system as an archive. This is while published manuscripts and all their contents regarding copies of the original submission, reviews, revisions, and correspondences are kept in perpetuity for any further actions.

All manuscripts are sent in the process of double-blinded peer review. to two or more reviewers Peer reviewers will be asked to recommend whether a manuscript should be accepted, revised, or rejected (for further information please visit ICMJE).

How to Review a Manuscript via the IJTMGH Portal?

At first, an invitation containing the manuscript's abstract will be sent via email to the reviewers. They will then be registered via the IJTMGH portal and at the end a Username and Password will be automatically sent to them.

 Reviewers should login via the IJTMGH portal to complete the review process and then follow the instructions provided in below:

Please go to your profile--Reviewer Section--Pending Assignments--Click on the manuscript ID--Click on Manuscript Evaluation Form--Fill the form/attach the review file--Make the decision (Reviewer Recommendation) as to Accept, Minor Revisions, Major Revisions, Re-Submit or Reject--Push "Send to Editor" button

IJTMGH Manuscript Evaluation Form

All the reviewers will be asked to complete the IJTMGH Evaluation Form which contains the following questions:

  1. Is the question posed by the authors innovative and well defined?
  2. Does the article’s topic raise existing knowledge?
  3. Are the methods appropriate and well described, and are sufficient details provided to replicate the work?
  4. Are the data sound and well controlled?
  5. Are the discussion and conclusions well balanced and adequately supported by the data?
  6. Are the appropriate and up-to-date references used?
  7. Do the title and abstract accurately convey what has been found?
  8. Is the article well written?
  9. Major Revisions: The author is obliged to respond to these before a decision on publication can be made. For example statistical mistakes, errors in interpretation and so on.
  10. Minor Revisions: The author can be trusted to make these. For example, missing labels on figures, the wrong use of a term, spelling mistakes.
  11. Acceptance  with Minor  Revision: The author can be trusted to make these. For example, the wrong use of a term and spelling mistakes.
  12. Accept
  13. Reject
  14. Reviewer notes for Editor-in-Chief
  15. Reviewer notes for author(s)