FOR REVIEWERS

Guidelines for Reviewers

Peer review is the foundation of the quality and credibility of JAIMC. We are grateful to every reviewer who gives time and expertise to the journal. These guidelines explain what we ask of reviewers and how the review process works, in line with the COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers, the ICMJE Recommendations and WAME guidance.

1. Peer Review at JAIMC

JAIMC follows a double-blind peer review policy. Reviewers do not know the identity of the authors, and authors do not know the identity of the reviewers.
After initial editorial assessment, each manuscript is sent to one internal reviewer, one external reviewer and a statistical reviewer, selected from the journal’s database of national and international reviewers according to subject specialty.
Every manuscript is screened with Turnitin before peer review begins. Manuscripts above 19% similarity are returned to the authors, so reviewers receive manuscripts that have already passed this check. Reviewers should still report any plagiarism they notice.
Reviewers are given an average of two weeks to complete a review.
The final decision to accept or reject rests with the editors, who weigh the reviewers’ comments.

2. Who Can Review

Reviewers are invited by the editorial board according to their expertise. We look for reviewers who:

Hold a relevant postgraduate qualification or have recognized experience in the subject area, with a record of publications or teaching;
Have no conflict of interest with the authors or the work;
Can complete the review within the time allowed;
Are willing to follow the confidentiality and ethical requirements below.

Reviewers interested in joining the journal’s reviewer database may contact the editorial office with a short CV and a list of areas of expertise. Statistical reviewers should have documented experience in biostatistics or epidemiology.

3. Accepting or Declining an Invitation

Read the title and abstract in the invitation before replying.
Decline if the work is outside your expertise, if you cannot complete the review within the time allowed, or if you have a conflict of interest (Section 5). Suggesting alternative reviewers is welcome.
Accept only if you can give the manuscript your full attention. If you need more time after accepting, tell the editorial office as early as possible rather than letting the deadline pass.
Respond promptly, even if you decline, so that the manuscript is not delayed.

4. Confidentiality

The manuscript is a confidential document. Do not share, discuss or distribute it, in whole or in part, with anyone without the editor’s permission.
Do not use any information, data, ideas or text from the manuscript for your own research or advantage before it is published.
Do not contact the authors directly, and do not try to identify them. If you believe you know who the authors are, or the manuscript contains identifying details, tell the editor; this is not a reason to decline unless it creates a conflict of interest.
Do not mention your identity in comments intended for the authors, and avoid asking authors to cite your own work unless it is clearly relevant to the science.
Delete or securely destroy the manuscript files after you submit the review and the editorial process is complete.

5. Conflict of Interest

A conflict of interest arises when a reviewer has a competing interest that could unduly influence, or reasonably seem to influence, their judgement. Decline the review, and tell the editor, if any of the following applies:

You are a current or recent collaborator, co-author, supervisor, student or close colleague of any author, or you work in the same department or institution;
You have a personal relationship, rivalry or dispute with any author;
You have a financial or commercial interest in the product, company or outcome studied;
You are directly competing with the authors on the same research question;
You have previously seen or reviewed the same manuscript for another journal and cannot be impartial.

If you are unsure whether something is a conflict, disclose it to the editor and let the editor decide.

6. Use of Artificial Intelligence

Do not upload the manuscript, or any part of it, to a public generative AI tool, because this breaches confidentiality.
The review must reflect your own expert judgement. AI tools must not be used to generate the assessment or the recommendation.
If you used a permitted tool for minor language editing of your own report, you remain fully responsible for its content, and should tell the editor.

7. How to Evaluate a Manuscript

Read the whole manuscript, including tables, figures, supplementary files and the reporting-guideline checklist, before forming a view. Consider the following.

7.1 Originality and importance

Is the question new, relevant and important for JAIMC readers, including those in Pakistan and similar settings?
Does the work add to existing knowledge, and is the literature review current and fair?

7.2 Ethics

Is there a statement of approval from an institutional ethical review board, with the committee name, number and date? For case reports, is there a statement of informed consent?
Were participants’ identities protected, including in photographs?
For trials, is the registration number given? Was the trial registered prospectively?
Are the conflict-of-interest, funding, contributor and AI-use statements present and credible?

7.3 Methods and design

Is the study design suitable for the question? Are the setting, dates, population, eligibility criteria and sampling technique described?
Is the sample size justified, with the calculation and assumptions stated?
Are variables, outcomes and instruments clearly defined and valid?
Is the risk of bias (selection, measurement, confounding, attrition) addressed?
Is the work reported in line with the correct guideline (CONSORT, STROBE, PRISMA, MOOSE, STARD, CARE and others)? Does the checklist match the manuscript?

7.4 Results and statistics

Are the statistical tests appropriate and correctly applied? Is the software stated?
Are effect sizes reported with confidence intervals, and not only p-values? Are multiple comparisons and missing data handled?
Do the tables and figures match the text and the abstract? Are the numbers internally consistent (for example percentages, totals and denominators)?
Are there signs of selective reporting, data dredging, or results that seem implausibly perfect?

The statistical reviewer concentrates on this section: design-related statistical issues, sample size, test choice, assumptions, and whether the interpretation is supported by the analysis.

7.5 Discussion and conclusions

Are the conclusions supported by the data, and no stronger than the design allows? In particular, is causality claimed from an associative design?
Are the limitations honestly discussed, and is the study compared appropriately with previous work?

7.6 Presentation and references

Is the structured abstract accurate and consistent with the full text? Are the keywords suitable?
Is the language clear? Remember that reviewers are asked to assess the science, and weak English alone is not a reason for rejection.
Are references accurate, current, relevant and in Vancouver style? Are there signs of excessive self-citation or fabricated references?

8. Concerns About Misconduct

Tell the editor in confidence if you suspect any of the following. Do not investigate yourself and do not contact the authors.

Plagiarism or substantial overlap with other published work, including the authors’ own (duplicate publication or salami slicing);
Fabricated, falsified or manipulated data or images;
Ghost, guest or gift authorship;
Unethical research, such as missing approval or consent, or identifiable patients;
Undisclosed conflicts of interest or unreported funding.

The editorial board assesses each concern under the journal’s scientific misconduct policy and COPE guidance. Possible responses include halting the manuscript, an investigation, and blacklisting of the author.

9. Writing the Review

A good review helps the editor decide, and helps the authors improve the work, whatever the outcome. Please:

Begin with a short summary of the study in your own words, so that the editor and authors know you understood it.
Separate major concerns (those that affect validity or conclusions) from minor concerns (presentation, wording, small corrections).
Be specific. Refer to page, section, table or line numbers, and explain why something is a problem and how it could be fixed.
Be objective, constructive and courteous. Criticize the work, not the authors, and avoid sarcasm or personal remarks.
Support statements with evidence or references. Distinguish what is a flaw from what is a matter of preference.
Keep comments for the authors separate from confidential comments for the editor. Do not state your recommendation (accept or reject) in the comments to the authors.
Do not rewrite the manuscript or spend your time on language editing.

10. Recommendations

Recommendation	When to use it
Accept	The manuscript is sound and needs no further changes, or only trivial editorial corrections.
Minor revision	The study is valid, but needs clarification, additional detail or small corrections that do not require new analysis.
Major revision	The question is worthwhile, but there are significant concerns about methods, analysis, interpretation or reporting that the authors may be able to address.
Reject	The work has fatal flaws in design, ethics or integrity, lacks novelty or relevance, or cannot be rescued by revision.

If a reviewer recommends rejection, the manuscript is sent to another reviewer together with the first reviewer’s comments, before the editors make the final decision. Reviewers should therefore explain a rejection recommendation fully, with reasons the editors and second reviewer can check.

11. Timelines

Stage	Expectation
Responding to the invitation	As soon as possible, ideally within 2 to 3 days
Completing the review	An average of 2 weeks from acceptance of the invitation
Extension	Request early from the editorial office if more time is needed, with a realistic date
Revised manuscripts	Re-review of a revised manuscript is usually quicker. Please respond within the time stated by the editorial office

Overall, JAIMC aims to complete peer review within 28 days, so timely reviews are essential. Reviewers who repeatedly miss deadlines without notice may be removed from the database.

12. Submitting the Review

Log in to the journal’s OJS site at https://jms.jaimc.org using the link in your invitation.
Accept the invitation, and download the manuscript files.
Complete the review form (see the Appendix) and enter your comments for the authors and, separately, for the editor.
Select your recommendation and submit the review.
If you encounter technical problems, contact the editorial office.

13. After Your Review

You will be informed of the final decision on the manuscript. Reviewers are told the outcome, and may see the other reviews when the journal shares them.
You may be asked to review a revised version. Check whether the authors have responded fully and honestly to each comment.
Your identity is not disclosed to the authors. Please keep the process confidential even after publication.
If you later become aware of an issue with a manuscript you reviewed or its publication, tell the editorial office.

14. Recognition

JAIMC values its reviewers. In each issue, the journal names a Distinguished Reviewer on the website in recognition of exceptional contribution, based on the quality, timeliness and constructiveness of reviews. Reviews can also be a documented part of your academic service.

15. Concerns and Complaints

Any reviewer who has a concern about the review process or about the conduct of the journal may contact the editorial office. Complaints are handled under the journal’s complaint policy and COPE guidance.

16. Contact

Editorial Office, Journal of Allama Iqbal Medical College

Allama Iqbal Medical College, Lahore, Pakistan

Phone: +92 42 99231453

Website: https://jaimc.org | Submission portal: https://jms.jaimc.org

Email: [editorial office email]

Appendix: Reviewer Form

The OJS review form follows this structure. Rate each item, and explain any “No” or “Partly” in the comments.

A. Quick assessment

Item	Yes	Partly	No	Not applicable
The topic is original and relevant to JAIMC readers
The title and abstract accurately reflect the work
Ethical approval and informed consent are clearly stated
The study design is appropriate for the objective
The sample size and sampling technique are justified
Methods are described well enough to be repeated
Statistical methods are appropriate and correctly applied
Tables and figures are clear and consistent with the text
Conclusions are supported by the results
Limitations are acknowledged
The relevant reporting guideline has been followed
References are current, relevant and accurate
I have no concerns about plagiarism or misconduct

B. Comments for the authors

Summary of the study in your own words
Major concerns (numbered)
Minor concerns (numbered)

C. Confidential comments for the editor

Any concerns about ethics, integrity, plagiarism or conflicts of interest
Your overall opinion of the importance of the work, and your confidence in your own expertise
Any other information the editor should have

D. Recommendation

Accept / Minor revision / Major revision / Reject

E. Reviewer declaration

I confirm that I have no conflict of interest in reviewing this manuscript, that I have kept it confidential, and that I have not used generative AI tools on it.

These guidelines may be updated in line with changes to international guidance. Please check the journal website for the current version.