Peer Review Guidelines

Peer Review Process

Dunya Journal of Medical Sciences (DJMS) employs a single-anonymous review process, also known as single-blind peer review. This means that reviewers remain anonymous to the authors, while the reviewers can see the identity of the authors.

Competing Interests

As a reviewer for DJMS, you are expected to uphold the integrity of the peer review process. Careful consideration of competing interests is crucial, as they may introduce actual or perceived bias, potentially affecting the credibility of the review process. Even when a study is scientifically sound, competing interests can compromise its integrity at a later stage.

Competing interests may be financial or non-financial, and they can arise from professional or personal relationships with an individual or organization.

If you believe you have a competing interest, please notify the editors. The editorial team may either ask you to proceed with the review while considering the competing interest or assign a different reviewer. Transparency is key, and the editors must be fully informed to account for any potential bias when assessing reviewer feedback.

Reviewer Assessment

The primary objectives of the peer review process are:

  1. To assist in selecting high-quality manuscripts for publication in DJMS.
  2. To support authors in improving their manuscripts through constructive feedback.

As a reviewer, you are expected to assess the quality, validity, and relevance of the manuscript, and provide a well-reasoned evaluation of any major concerns. Your focus should be on the originality, clarity, scientific rigor, and relevance of the work to the journal’s readership.

Reviewers will specifically assess the manuscript based on the following criteria:

  • Study design and quality of data
  • Adequacy of discussion and conclusions
  • Methodological soundness
  • Significance of the study in contributing new knowledge or confirming existing findings

Additionally, please evaluate the title and abstract carefully. The title should be concise yet informative, and the abstract should provide a clear summary of the study, as many readers will only access these sections.

Providing Reviewer Comments

In your comments to the authors, please begin with a general summary of your evaluation, highlighting both strengths and areas for improvement. Avoid making direct recommendations regarding acceptance or rejection in the author’s comments—this should be reserved for the confidential reviewer form addressed to the Editor.

  • Major Comments: Address key sections such as the Abstract, Introduction, Methods, Results, and Discussion.
  • Minor Comments: Provide suggestions on specific details, clarity, grammar, and formatting issues.

If you determine that the manuscript is not suitable for publication, even after revision, detailed comments are not required. However, confidential feedback to the Editor explaining your reasons for recommending revision or rejection is highly valued.

Timeliness and Manuscript Length Considerations

DJMS is committed to minimizing publication time, and the efficiency of the peer review process plays a vital role in achieving this goal. We kindly ask reviewers to:

  • Notify the editorial office immediately if you are unable to review a manuscript.
  • Adhere to the given review deadline. If you require an extension, please inform the editorial office as soon as possible so authors can be notified accordingly.

Due to the high number of submissions, the rejection rate is significant. Reviewers are encouraged to suggest ways for authors to shorten manuscripts, reduce unnecessary tables and figures, and limit references where appropriate.

Please note that the final decision on manuscript acceptance or rejection rests with the Editor-in-Chief, and in some cases, decisions may differ from reviewer recommendations to align with the journal's scope and priorities.