Reviewer Guidelines
The goal of MedSciens Publishing Group is to facilitate and enrich the peer review procedure. Our resources are tailored for individuals at the beginning of their research careers who are interested in engaging in the review process, as well as for established peer reviewers.
Peer review plays a crucial role in the research process. Scholars generously dedicate hours of their time each week to evaluate their peers' work, providing valuable feedback to enhance the published article and refine it from a draft manuscript to the ultimate version. We are dedicated to acknowledging the important and essential role carried out by peer reviewers. We are here to support your efforts by promoting and facilitating the recognition of your peer review contributions.
Reviewer Responsibilities:
1. The reviewer is responsible for providing an honest and accurate analysis of the research.
2. Reviewers should only accept manuscripts within their area of expertise, although editors may occasionally assign papers outside of this scope to maintain high review standards.
3. Their primary role is to evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of the work and offer suggestions to improve its quality.
4. Reviewers should avoid evaluating manuscripts that is co-authored by themselves, their colleagues, or individuals with whom they have a personal relationship.
5. Any requests for further assistance or clarifications regarding the paper should be directed to the editor, and the confidentiality of the paper must be maintained.
6. Additionally, reviewers are encouraged to report any suspected instances of duplicate publication, plagiarism, or ethical concerns related to the use of animals or humans in the research.
7. Reviewers' comments should align with one of the acts listed below.
a. Accept without revision
b. Revision (Major/Minor
c. Reject
8. If revision required: Please detail the required changes, it is essential to provide the author with a clear and reasonable explanation for why this adjustment is required.
9. If the article is deemed unsuitable/reject for publication in your perspective, kindly provide a detailed explanation for the basis of your decision.
10. Reviewers are not permitted to make use of any confidential information from the paper prior to its publication.
11. Even after publication, reviewers are only allowed to utilize the published data and not the content obtained from previous drafts during the peer review process.
Peer review plays a crucial role in the research process. Scholars generously dedicate hours of their time each week to evaluate their peers' work, providing valuable feedback to enhance the published article and refine it from a draft manuscript to the ultimate version. We are dedicated to acknowledging the important and essential role carried out by peer reviewers. We are here to support your efforts by promoting and facilitating the recognition of your peer review contributions.
Reviewer Responsibilities:
1. The reviewer is responsible for providing an honest and accurate analysis of the research.
2. Reviewers should only accept manuscripts within their area of expertise, although editors may occasionally assign papers outside of this scope to maintain high review standards.
3. Their primary role is to evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of the work and offer suggestions to improve its quality.
4. Reviewers should avoid evaluating manuscripts that is co-authored by themselves, their colleagues, or individuals with whom they have a personal relationship.
5. Any requests for further assistance or clarifications regarding the paper should be directed to the editor, and the confidentiality of the paper must be maintained.
6. Additionally, reviewers are encouraged to report any suspected instances of duplicate publication, plagiarism, or ethical concerns related to the use of animals or humans in the research.
7. Reviewers' comments should align with one of the acts listed below.
a. Accept without revision
b. Revision (Major/Minor
c. Reject
8. If revision required: Please detail the required changes, it is essential to provide the author with a clear and reasonable explanation for why this adjustment is required.
9. If the article is deemed unsuitable/reject for publication in your perspective, kindly provide a detailed explanation for the basis of your decision.
10. Reviewers are not permitted to make use of any confidential information from the paper prior to its publication.
11. Even after publication, reviewers are only allowed to utilize the published data and not the content obtained from previous drafts during the peer review process.