ETHICAL GUIDELINES FOR REVIEWERS

Peer review is a cornerstone of scholarly publishing and a critical component of the editorial decision-making process. Reviewers support Editors by evaluating the quality, validity, originality, scientific significance, and relevance of submitted manuscripts and by providing constructive feedback to help authors improve their work. The credibility, quality, and reputation of the Al-Najam Journal of Medical and Life Sciences (ANJMLS) depend heavily on the integrity, transparency, and rigor of its peer-review process. Reviewers accept an ethical responsibility to conduct evaluations professionally, objectively, confidentially, and in a timely manner. In accordance with recognized international principles of scholarly publishing and applicable Higher Education Commission (HEC), Pakistan, expectations, ANJMLS outlines the following ethical responsibilities for reviewers.

1. Suitability and Promptness

Reviewers should promptly inform the Editor if they lack the subject expertise required to evaluate a manuscript or if they are unable to complete the review within the stipulated timeframe. Review assignments should be accepted only when reviewers can provide an appropriate and timely assessment. Review reports should be submitted within the agreed deadline, and anticipated delays should be communicated to the Editor as early as possible. Reviewers should avoid unnecessary delays, including unwarranted requests for additional data or information that are not essential to evaluating the manuscript.

2. Standards of Objectivity

Reviews must be conducted objectively and based on scientific merit, methodological rigor, originality, relevance, ethical standards, and alignment with the scope of ANJMLS. Evaluations and recommendations should be clearly reasoned and supported by evidence. Reviewers should avoid personal criticism, derogatory language, unsupported assertions, or comments unrelated to the scientific content of the manuscript. Assessments must not be influenced by personal, financial, professional, institutional, academic, or ideological biases.

3. Disclosure and Conflict of Interest

Reviewers must not use unpublished information obtained through peer review for personal, academic, professional, commercial, or research advantage without appropriate authorization from the Editor. Manuscript data, findings, methods, and interpretations must remain confidential. Any actual, potential, or perceived conflict of interest must be disclosed to the Editor. Conflicts may include personal relationships, professional collaborations, institutional affiliations, financial interests, academic competition, intellectual property interests, or closely related research. If a reviewer believes that a conflict could prevent an impartial assessment, the reviewer should decline the assignment and inform the Editor.

4. Confidentiality

Manuscripts received for review must be treated as confidential documents. Reviewers must not discuss, disclose, copy, share, store, distribute, or otherwise make use of manuscript content without explicit authorization from the Editor. Manuscript findings, data, figures, methods, and other unpublished material must not be cited, incorporated into other work, or used for personal benefit before publication.

5. Ethical Considerations

Reviewers should promptly notify the Editor if they identify possible ethical concerns, including plagiarism, duplicate publication, redundant publication, fabricated or falsified data, inappropriate image manipulation, citation manipulation, authorship concerns, or substantial similarity to previously published work. Reviewers should also report concerns relating to human or animal research, including inadequate ethical approval, lack of informed consent, inappropriate treatment of participants, breaches of confidentiality, or failure to protect vulnerable populations. Relevant concerns should be communicated privately to the Editor rather than presented as accusations against the authors.

6. Originality

Reviewers should assess whether the manuscript provides meaningful and sufficiently original knowledge in the fields of medical and life sciences. Consideration should be given to the relevance and clarity of the research question, the appropriateness of the study design, the novelty of the methodology or findings, the scientific contribution, and the relationship between the research objectives and conclusions.

7. Structure and Presentation

Reviewers should assess the manuscript’s methodological transparency, scientific structure, clarity of language, readability, and compliance with relevant journal requirements. Tables, figures, clinical images, laboratory images, and other illustrations should be evaluated for accuracy and consistency with the reported results. Reviewers should examine the appropriateness of statistical analyses, the adequacy of the methodology, the logical relationship between methods, results, discussion, and conclusions, the quality of references, and significant typographical or formatting issues that may affect scientific communication.

8. Review Report

Reviewers must present their comments clearly, constructively, and explicitly, as authors will have access to the reviewer reports. Where applicable, prescribed review forms should be completed fully. Reviewers are encouraged to provide a concise assessment of the manuscript’s strengths, weaknesses, originality, methodological quality, and overall scientific contribution. Identified deficiencies should be explained specifically so that both the Editor and authors can understand the basis of the recommendation. Recommendations should clearly indicate whether the manuscript is suitable for acceptance, revision, or rejection, with appropriate justification. Required revisions should be clearly identified, and reviewers may be asked to reassess revised manuscripts. Final publication decisions remain the responsibility of the Editor, while reviewers serve in an advisory capacity.