Information For Reviewers

The quality of Indian Journal of Indian Journal of Medicine and Healthcare lies in the hands of reviewers. Peer review is a critical factor in establishing high quality scientific research. The editorial Board of Indian Journal of Medicine and Healthcare seeks relentless and unreserved support from the reviewers.
Invitation for reviewers to join Indian Journal of Medicine and Healthcare sent by email from the editorial board. The abstract of the manuscript and the time-frame for sending the comment will be notified in the mail. After agreeing to the invitation, the reviewer will have the access to the entire manuscript sent by email. To meet the dead-line of the monthly publication, Indian Journal of Medicine and Healthcare entrust the responsibility of subsequent reviews, if any, on the same manuscript the reviewer initially agreed upon. However, our journal enough steps to select potential manuscript which do not demand repeated reviews. Indian Journal of Medicine and Healthcare submits the following hints for the noble task. 

The objectives of the review
The reviewer of Indian Journal of Medicine and Healthcare (Indian J. Med. Healthcare) looks for technical rigor and the novelty of the work presented. The key features of a review will include:

  • Look for conceptual advancement over previously published work
  • Any omission of the previously published findings on the same or similar problem
  • Eliminating any redundancy
  • Establishing readability and clarity in presentation
  • Right approach of interpretation of the result
  • Any alternate hypothesis or understanding over the results obtained
  • Statistical accuracy and validity of the methods adapted in studying the problem (if necessary the reviewers can obtain the primary data from the authors through the Editor)
  • Look for suspicious data and unethical way of presentation (duplication, manipulation of data, plagiarism etc)
  • A specific suggestion to improve the understanding of the theme or work
  • Summarizing the strength and weakness of the paper
  • Potential importance of the work in the context of present and future
  • The efforts of reviewers will be of paramount importance for the journal to curb any unacceptable way of publication including plagiarism

Direct correction
In case of direct correction on the word file, the reviewers can use different font colours (blue) to mark their corrections. 

Specific suggestions
If some aspects of the comment seem inappropriate for presentation to authors, the same can be separately indicated for the eyes of the Editor only. The general concern and comments can be made in such a manner that it can be addressed to the authors. In case of rejecting the manuscript, the reviewers need to indicate the ground on which the decision is taken. Reviewers can be very critical on the manuscript presented, at the same time they must avoid any personalized remarks, which may be viewed as biased or with ulterior motive.

It is needless to say that the reviewers must preserve the confidentiality of the unpublished works Indian Journal of Medicine and Healthcare (Indian J. Med. Healthcare) will not deny or identify the reviewers if the authors contact the Editor; similar approach can be adapted by the reviewer if they are contacted by authors and at the same time feel free to bring them to the notice of the Editor.

In addition, the reviewer may also exercise their decision in the following format



Reviewer’s decision
Dear Reviewer, Please suggest your opinion by Marking ‘YES’ (OR) ‘NO’

Accept                                              : Yes/No
Accept with minor changes         : Yes/No
Accept with major changes         : Yes/No
Decline                                            : Yes/No

Original article                                                             : Yes/No 
Significantly matches with previous publication  : Yes/No 
Not verified                                                                    : Yes/No

Excellent                                         : Yes/No
Good                                                : Yes/No
Acceptable                                      : Yes/No 
Without obvious significance      : Yes/No
Weak                                                : Yes/No
Too speculative                              : Yes/No
Too preliminary                              : Yes/No
Outside this journal’s scope       : Yes/No

Adequately descriptive : Yes/No 
Corresponds to the text   : Yes/No 
Should be changed         : Yes/No

Clear and adequate                           : Yes/No
Needs linguistic revision                  : Yes/No
Needs substantial revision              : Yes/No

Grammatically good                         : Yes/No 
Needs essential / slight revision   : Yes/No 
Reject                                                  : Yes/No

Adequate                                            : Yes/No
Too brief / long                                  : Yes/No
Contains irrelevant material           : Yes/No
Arrangement unsuitable                 : Yes/No
Not readable                                     : Yes/No

Adequate                                           : Yes/No
Figure/ table quality acceptable    : Yes/No
Figure/ table nos. ________ may be omitted
Figure/ table nos.________ need alteration

Adequate               : Yes/No
Inadequate           : Yes/No
Incomplete            : Yes/No