For Reviewers

Guidelines for reviewers

How to peer review for MJMS

We encourage reviewers to help authors improve their manuscripts. The report should give constructive analysis to authors, particularly where revisions are recommended.

Some core aspects that should be critiqued by reviewers may include:

• Are the research questions valid?
• Is the sample size sufficient?
• Is there necessary ethical approval and/or consent and was the research ethical?
• Are the methods and study design appropriate for answering the research question?
• Do the experiments have appropriate controls?
• Is the reporting of the methods, including any equipment and materials, sufficiently detailed that the research might be reproduced?
• Are any statistical tests used appropriately and correctly reported?
• Are the figures and tables clear and do they accurately represent the results?
• Are there any inappropriate citations, for example, not supporting the claim being made or too many citations to the authors' own articles?
• Do the results support the conclusions?
• Are limitations of the research acknowledged?
• Is the abstract an accurate summary of the research and results?
• Is the language clear and understandable?

At the end of their review, we ask reviewers to recommend one of the following actions:

• Publish Unaltered
• Consider after Minor Changes
• Consider after Major Changes
• Reject