Quick Guide for Reviewers
Before Accepting a Review Invitation
Before accepting an invitation, reviewers should:
1. Confirm that they have appropriate expertise to evaluate the manuscript.
2. Ensure that they can complete the review within the requested timeframe.
3. Check for actual, potential, or perceived competing interests.
4. Decline the invitation if they lack the necessary expertise, cannot meet the deadline, or have a conflict that may compromise their impartiality.
5. Maintain the confidentiality of the manuscript and all editorial communications.
6. Review the journal's Duties and Responsibilities for Reviewers to understand the ethical principles, professional standards, confidentiality requirements, competing interest disclosures, and policies on the use of generative AI that must be followed throughout the peer-review process.
By accepting a review invitation, reviewers confirm their willingness to comply with IJM's reviewer guidelines, publication ethics policies, and applicable recommendations of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).
How to Evaluate a Manuscript
Reviewers should evaluate manuscripts submitted to the Indonesian Journal of Medicine (IJM) based on the following criteria:
1. Relevance to the Journal
Assess whether the manuscript aligns with IJM's aims and scope and addresses a relevant issue in the journal's scope.
2. Originality and Contribution
Determine whether the study provides new knowledge, meaningful evidence, or an important contribution to the field of the journal's scope.
3. Title and Abstract
Evaluate whether the title and abstract accurately and clearly reflect the study objectives, methods, main findings, and conclusions.
4. Introduction
Assess whether the research problem is clearly defined, supported by relevant literature, and accompanied by clearly stated research objectives or hypotheses.
5. Methods
Evaluate whether the study design, sampling strategy, measurements, data collection procedures, statistical analyses, and reporting methods are appropriate and adequately described.
6. Results
Determine whether the findings are presented clearly, accurately, and consistently with the study methods and statistical analyses.
7. Discussion
Assess whether the findings are appropriately interpreted, compared with existing evidence, and discussed in relation to the study's strengths, limitations, and relevant scientific literature.
8. Implications for Maternal and Child Healt
Evaluate whether the manuscript clearly explains the implications of its findings for the journal's scope, as relevant to the study. Consider whether the findings have potential applications in clinical practice, public health programs, health policy, healthcare service delivery, or future research. Reviewers should ensure that the proposed implications are relevant to the target population and healthcare context, supported by the study findings, and proportionate to the strength of the evidence.
9. Conclusions
Determine whether the conclusions are consistent with the results and study limitations, without unsupported claims or inappropriate causal interpretations.
10. Ethical Considerations
Assess whether ethical approval, informed consent, participant protection, and other applicable research ethics requirements have been adequately addressed.
11. References
Evaluate whether the references are relevant, accurate, appropriate, and sufficiently current to support the study rationale, methods, and interpretation.
12. Tables and Figures
Check whether tables and figures present the data clearly and accurately and are consistent with the manuscript text.
Reviewers should assess both the scientific rigor of the manuscript and its potential contribution to improving the journal's scope outcomes. The significance of the findings should be considered in the context of relevant populations, healthcare settings, public health priorities, and resource constraints. Recommendations for clinical practice, health programs, or policy should be proportionate to the evidence and should not extend beyond what the study design and results can support.
Writing the Review Report
Reviewers are required to use the IJM Template for Review Assessment when preparing their review reports. The template provides a standardized framework to ensure that manuscript evaluations are systematic, objective, constructive, and consistent with the journal's editorial standards.
A review report should include the following elements:
General assessment: Briefly summarize the manuscript's contribution, strengths, and main limitations.
Major comments: Identify issues affecting scientific validity, study design, methodology, statistical analysis, interpretation, or research ethics.
Minor comments: Identify issues involving clarity, structure, terminology, grammar, tables, figures, or references.
Constructive recommendations: Explain clearly what needs improvement and, where possible, suggest practical ways to address each concern.
Reviewers should be respectful, objective, and specific. Personal criticism, discriminatory remarks, hostile language, and unsupported allegations are unacceptable.
The completed IJM Template for Review Assessment should be submitted through the journal's official electronic submission system within the agreed review period.
Reviewers should ensure that their recommendations are consistent with the comments provided. The final publication decision rests with the Editor-in-Chief or an authorized editor.
Publication Recommendation
After completing the assessment, reviewers should provide a recommendation through the journal's submission system, using the available decision categories:
Accept: The manuscript meets the journal's requirements and requires no substantive changes.
Minor Revision: Limited changes are needed before a final decision.
Major Revision: Substantial changes are required, and further evaluation may be necessary.
Reject: The manuscript has fundamental limitations or does not meet the journal's publication criteria.
These recommendations are advisory. The Editor-in-Chief or an authorized editor makes the final publication decision.
Research Ethics and Integrity
Reviewers should promptly inform the editor of concerns about potential plagiarism, substantial overlap with published work, data fabrication or falsification, inappropriate authorship, unethical research practices, or other possible breaches of publication ethics.
Concerns should be reported confidentially and supported by evidence where possible. Reviewers should not independently investigate allegations by contacting authors or third parties without editorial authorization.
For further guidance, reviewers are encouraged to consult the following IJM policies Publication Ethics and Plagiarism and Turnitin Policy.
Confidentiality and Responsible Use of AI
Reviewers are required to comply with the Indonesian Journal of Medicine (IJM) policy on the use of generative artificial intelligence (AI) and AI-assisted technologies during peer review. Before accepting a review invitation and conducting a manuscript assessment, reviewers should read the journal's AI Policy for Reviewers to understand the permitted and prohibited uses of AI tools, confidentiality requirements, and reviewers' responsibilities when using AI-assisted technologies, including:
1. Do not share manuscripts, reviewer reports, or editorial correspondence with unauthorized individuals.
2. Do not contact authors directly about a manuscript without permission from the editor.
3. Do not upload confidential manuscript materials to unauthorized generative AI tools or external services.
4. Use AI-assisted technologies only as permitted by IJM policy; AI must not replace independent expert judgment.
5. Do not use unpublished information obtained during peer review for personal, professional, or financial advantage.
6. Obtain prior editorial approval before involving another person in the review process.
Citation Practices and Competing Interests
Reviewers should recommend references only when they are scientifically relevant and contribute meaningfully to the manuscript. They must not request unnecessary citations to their own publications, those of their associates, or particular journals to increase citation counts or rankings.
Any actual, potential, or perceived competing interests must be disclosed to the editor. Reviewers should decline or withdraw from assignments when their impartiality may be compromised.
For further guidance, reviewers are required to consult the IJM policy on Declaration of Competing Interests for Reviewers before accepting a review invitation.
Timeliness and Communication
Reviewers should submit their reports within the agreed deadline. If additional time is needed, they should contact the editorial team promptly. If they cannot complete the review, they should inform the editor as soon as possible.
Guiding Principle
Reviewers are expected to uphold the principles of fairness, confidentiality, transparency, scientific rigor, and research integrity in accordance with IJM editorial policies and the ethical guidance of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).
