Peer Review Guidelines

Purpose of Peer Review

The peer review process helps ensure that the manuscripts published in African Journal of Research in Medical and Health Sciences meet the highest standards of scientific rigor, quality, and relevance. The purpose of peer review is to:

  • Evaluate the quality, accuracy, and originality of the research.

  • Ensure the methodology is sound and the conclusions are supported by the data.

  • Maintain the integrity of the academic publication process.

Roles and Responsibilities of Reviewers

  1. Confidentiality

    • All aspects of the peer review process are confidential. Do not discuss the manuscript with anyone other than the assigned editor.

    • You may not use information, data, or ideas from the manuscript for personal or professional gain.

  2. Conflict of Interest

    • You should not accept a review assignment if you have a conflict of interest with the authors, such as personal, financial, or professional interests.

    • If any conflict of interest arises during the review process, immediately inform the journal’s editorial office.

  3. Constructive Feedback

    • Reviews should be fair, unbiased, and constructive. Critiques should be specific, evidence-based, and respectful.

    • Aim to provide feedback that will help the authors improve their manuscript.

  4. Timeliness

    • Complete the review within the time frame given by the journal. If you are unable to meet the deadline, please notify the editor promptly.

    • Timely reviews ensure the publication process proceeds efficiently.

  5. Ethical Considerations

    • Ensure that you review the manuscript based on its scientific merit, not on personal beliefs, biases, or preferences.

    • Report any instances of suspected plagiarism, data falsification, or unethical practices to the editor.

Criteria for Evaluating Manuscripts

1. Originality and Significance

  • Is the research original and does it contribute new knowledge or insights to the field?

  • Does the manuscript address an important research question or topic?

  • Does the manuscript present a novel approach or solution to the problem?

2. Clarity and Structure

  • Is the manuscript clearly written and well-organized?

  • Are the key points and research objectives stated clearly?

  • Is the manuscript logically structured (Introduction, Methodology, Results, Discussion, Conclusion)?

3. Methodology

  • Are the research methods appropriate, well-described, and reproducible?

  • Are the sampling techniques, data collection methods, and analysis strategies suitable for the research question?

  • Is the methodology clearly explained so that other researchers can replicate the study?

4. Results and Interpretation

  • Are the results clearly presented and supported by the data?

  • Are the statistical methods used appropriate for the analysis?

  • Are the conclusions justified based on the results, or are there over-generalizations or unsupported claims?

5. Literature Review and Background

  • Does the manuscript provide a comprehensive and up-to-date review of the relevant literature?

  • Are the references appropriate, current, and relevant to the research topic?

  • Are any important studies or concepts missing?

6. Figures and Tables

  • Are the figures and tables clear, informative, and well-labeled?

  • Do they effectively support the data and analysis presented in the manuscript?

  • Are the captions descriptive enough to understand the data without referring back to the main text?

7. Writing Quality

  • Is the language clear, concise, and free of grammatical errors?

  • Are there any issues with spelling, punctuation, or sentence structure that should be addressed?

Types of Recommendations

When providing feedback, reviewers should choose one of the following options:

  1. Accept as is – The manuscript meets all the necessary standards and does not require any further revisions.

  2. Minor revisions required – The manuscript is generally sound but requires some minor changes (e.g., correcting typos, improving clarity, addressing minor methodological issues).

  3. Major revisions required – The manuscript requires significant revisions (e.g., rewriting sections, improving methodology, clarifying arguments, reanalyzing data).

  4. Reject – The manuscript is not suitable for publication in its current form due to significant flaws in the research or writing. Specific reasons should be provided.

Review Submission Process

  • After completing the review, please submit your comments and recommendations through the journal’s review portal or by email (as instructed by the journal).

  • Provide separate feedback to the authors and to the editor. The feedback to the authors should be constructive, with suggestions for improvement. The feedback to the editor should include your overall recommendation (accept, minor revisions, major revisions, or reject), as well as a summary of the key issues identified.

Ethical Guidelines for Reviewers

  • Impartiality: Provide feedback based on the quality and content of the work, not personal biases or relationships.

  • Accuracy: Ensure that your evaluation is based on accurate interpretation of the manuscript and data.

  • Respect for Authors: Reviewers should maintain a professional tone, providing criticism in a way that is helpful and respectful.