Reviewers' Guidelines
Introduction
With their expertise, experience, and carefulness, honorable reviewers greatly contribute to the Editor-in-Chief and the Editorial Board in evaluating, selecting, revising, and improving the quality of articles for publication in the Journal of Medical History. Therefore, conducting a proper and precise review process is emphasized and requested by the Editorial Board of the Journal of Medical History.
This journal uses Double-Blind Peer Review, in which the identities of reviewers are kept hidden from the author(s) during and after the review. The identity of the author(s) is also unknown to the reviewers during the review process. The journal staff therefore take necessary measures and apply necessary policies to ensure that the identities of authors and reviewers remain unknown throughout the process from submission to publication. The journal follows the COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers and expects all reviewers to comply with them.
Since the role of reviewers in accepting, requesting corrections, or rejecting an article is the key determinant, in order to increase the quality of review, please pay attention to the review policies of the Journal of Medical History as follows:
Timeliness
If you are not able, for any reason, to carry out the review within the specified deadline, please decline the review invitation.
Conflict of Interest
If you have a conflict of interest in an article, please inform the Editor-in-Chief and decline to review.
If at any time you realize that you have a conflict of interest regarding the article, please stop the review, return the manuscript as soon as possible, and inform the Editor-in-Chief.
Declare any relationships or activities that might bias your evaluation of the manuscript.
Fairness
Throughout the review process, always adhere to the principles of fairness, justice, and non-bias.
Reviews should not be influenced by the race, gender, ethnicity, nationality, or religion of the author.
Reviews should not be influenced by the political, religious, or cultural viewpoint of the author.
Confidentiality
The manuscript submitted to you for review is a confidential document; therefore, exercise sufficient care in maintaining its confidentiality.
The details of the manuscript should remain confidential during and after the review process.
Do not assign the review of a submitted manuscript to a third party.
Respect the confidentiality of the peer review process.
Do not disclose the review outcome, even after publication, unless the author has given permission.
Review Reports
If you are certain that the article under review has been published elsewhere or is in the process of being published, immediately inform the Editor-in-Chief.
Study all parts of the submitted article in detail and express your valuable comments without any leniency or bias.
Always consider the aims and scope of the Journal of Medical History, as stated in the “About the Journal” section, and reconcile the submitted article with them. If the article is not in line with the journal’s aims and scope, please state this.
If you realize that the article submitted for review is outside your area of expertise, inform the Editor-in-Chief and the Editorial Board as soon as possible so that a substitute reviewer can be assigned. You may also introduce qualified individuals in the relevant subject area.
Being useful and constructive is a main characteristic of any review; therefore, express your valuable comments in a respectful and scientific manner.
Give your comments in an objective, clear, and transparent manner, in the form of scientific criticism, so that the author(s) can clearly understand your meaning.
Avoid using complicated or unusual words in your comments.
Complete all parts of the review questionnaire provided to you and offer your constructive and valuable recommendations to the Editor-in-Chief in the relevant section.
If you determine that an article does not meet the necessary and acceptable criteria for publication and cannot be corrected, recommend rejection.
In addition to reviewing the scientific content, examine the literary and writing aspects and provide your comments for improving the text.
The basis for completing the review is the review form in the journal system; therefore, avoid sending your comments by telephone, email, or orally.
Recommendations
Reviewer’s recommendation should be one of the following: