Reviewer's Guidelines

  1. Purpose of Peer Review

BIJMH practises double-blind peer-review process. Reviewers are invited to provide an objective, constructive, and expert assessment of submitted manuscripts to assist the Editor-in-Chief and Editorial Team in making publication decisions. 

 

  1. Reviewer Responsibilities

Reviewers are expected to: 

  • Provide a fair, unbiased, and critical evaluation of the manuscript based on scientific merit, originality, relevance, and contribution to the field. 
  • Assess the quality, accuracy, and validity of the methodology, results, interpretation, and conclusions. 
  • Provide constructive feedback that can help authors improve the manuscript. 
  • Maintain confidentiality of all manuscript information and not share, discuss, or use the content of the manuscript for personal or professional advantage. 
  • Declare any potential conflict of interest that may affect the objectivity of the review. 
  • Complete the review within the agreed timeframe or inform the editorial office if additional time is required. 

 

  1. General Conduct

Comments should be: 

  • Specific, respectful, and constructive. 
  • Focused on improving the scientific quality of the manuscript. 
  • Clear and supported by appropriate explanations. 

 

Reviewers should avoid: 

  • Personal criticism of authors. 
  • Unreasonable requests for additional work beyond the scope of the study. 
  • Comments that reveal their identity. 

 

  1. Confidentiality

Manuscripts submitted for review are confidential documents. Reviewers must not: 

  • Disclose the manuscript details or review process to others. 
  • Contact the authors directly regarding the manuscript. 
  • Use unpublished information from the manuscript for their own research or publication. 

 

  1. General Assessment of the Manuscript

Reviewers should consider the following aspects: 

 

Title and Abstract 

  • Is the title appropriate and reflective of the manuscript content? 
  • Does the abstract accurately summarize the study objectives, methods, results, and conclusions? 

 

Introduction 

  • Is the background information relevant and up to date? 
  • Are the research objectives, questions, or hypotheses clearly stated? 
  • Is the rationale for the study adequately justified? 

 

Methodology 

Reviewers should evaluate: 

  • Appropriateness of study design. 
  • Adequacy of participant selection and sample size. 
  • Clear description of procedures, interventions, and measurements. 
  • Appropriate use of statistical methods. 
  • Ethical approval and informed consent where applicable. 

 

Results 

Reviewers should assess: 

  • Clear and logical presentation of findings. 
  • Appropriate reporting of data and statistical analysis. 
  • Consistency between results and research objectives. 
  • Appropriate use of tables and figures. 

 

Discussion and Conclusion 

Reviewers should evaluate: 

  • Whether findings are interpreted appropriately. 
  • Whether conclusions are supported by the results. 
  • Discussion of study limitations. 
  • Comparison with existing literature. 
  • Clinical or scientific relevance of the findings. 

 

References 

  • Are references relevant, current, and appropriately cited? 
  • Are important studies included? 

 

  1. Confidential Comments to the Editor

Reviewers may provide confidential comments to the Editor regarding: 

  • Overall quality and significance of the manuscript. 
  • Ethical concerns. 
  • Suspected plagiarism, duplicate publication, or research misconduct. 
  • Recommendations regarding acceptance, revision (major or minor), or rejection. 

 

  1. Recommendation Categories

Reviewers may recommend: 

  • Accept Submission – Manuscript is suitable for publication with no or minimal changes. 
  • Revisions Required – Manuscript requires limited / significant improvements before acceptance. 
  • Resubmit for Review – New submission of revised manuscript that has been rejected by Editorial Team 
  • Resubmit Elsewhere – Manuscript is suitable for publication in another journal 
  • Decline Submission – Manuscript has major scientific, methodological, ethical, or relevance concerns. 

 

The final decision remains the responsibility of the Editor-in-Chief and Editorial Team. 

 

  1. Ethical Considerations

Reviewers should notify the Editor if they identify: 

  • Potential plagiarism or duplicate publication. 
  • Fabricated or unreliable data. 
  • Ethical concerns related to human or animal research. 
  • Undisclosed conflicts of interest. 

 

  1. Review Timeline

Reviewers are encouraged to complete their evaluation within 3 weeks of receiving the invitation. If unable to complete the review within the timeframe, reviewers should notify the editorial office promptly. 

 

  1. Appreciation

The Editorial Team of Borneo International Journal of Medicine and Health sincerely appreciates reviewers’ valuable contributions in maintaining the quality and integrity of the journal and advancing medical knowledge through rigorous peer review.