Reviewer Guidelines

 
JEMEDWELL

Reviewer Guidelines

Thank you for contributing your expertise to the Journal of Ethnomedicine and Medical Wellness. This guideline outlines the standards and expectations for conducting a rigorous, fair, and constructive peer review.

COPE ICMJE Declaration of Helsinki WAME Double-Blind Peer Review
Reviewer's Assessment Checklist
We strongly encourage you to open this checklist alongside these guidelines before you begin reading the manuscript. It walks you through each critical component of the review process.
Open Checklist
 

Preliminary Considerations Before Accepting

Before accepting a review invitation, please carefully evaluate the following criteria:

1
Expertise Alignment

Assess whether the manuscript's subject matter falls within your domain of scholarly competence. Your evaluation will be most valuable when grounded in direct familiarity with the research area.

2
Conflict of Interest

Declare any personal, professional, or financial relationships that could be perceived as influencing your impartiality. If such relationships exist, recuse yourself from the review process.

3
Availability & Timeliness

Confirm that you can dedicate sufficient time to complete a thorough evaluation within the designated timeframe. Prompt reviews are essential to maintaining the journal's publication schedule.

 

Confidentiality and Professional Conduct

Strict Confidentiality Obligation

Upon accepting a review assignment, you enter into a confidential relationship with the editorial office. The manuscript, along with your review content, must not be shared, discussed, or disseminated to any third party without explicit editorial authorization. This obligation extends to all supplementary materials and correspondence related to the submission, and remains in effect following the editorial decision.

 

The Review Process: Initial Reading

Commence your evaluation by reading the manuscript in its entirety. This comprehensive initial read will provide you with a holistic understanding of the research narrative, enabling you to formulate observations grounded in the full context of the work. Consider the study from your unique scholarly perspective, identifying both strengths and areas warranting refinement.

 

Crafting Your Review Report

Your assessment is a critical tool for editorial decision-making. The quality and clarity of your feedback directly influence whether a manuscript advances to publication. Adhere to the following principles:

1

Maintain a courteous and constructive tone throughout your commentary. Critical feedback should be delivered respectfully and professionally.

2

Clearly articulate the rationale behind each critique, enabling both editors and authors to grasp the reasoning that informs your judgments.

3

When identifying weaknesses, offer specific explanations rather than generalized statements. This transparency facilitates meaningful revisions and strengthens scholarly discourse.

 

Essential Elements of a Comprehensive Review

1 Article Summary

Provide a concise paragraph summarizing the manuscript's core objectives, methodology, and principal findings. This demonstrates your thorough engagement with the work and offers editors a quick reference point.

2 Overall Assessment

Articulate your overall impression of the manuscript, with particular attention to:

Novelty and originality
Significance of contribution
Impact on existing knowledge
Reader interest potential
3 Citation Recommendations

Should you suggest the addition of specific references, ensure such recommendations are grounded in substantive scientific necessity rather than personal or professional promotion. Citations should genuinely advance the manuscript's scholarly foundation. Reviewers must not suggest citations solely to increase their own citation count (per COPE guidelines).

4 Ethical Considerations

Alert the editorial team immediately if you suspect any of the following. Do not attempt to investigate independently — report your concern to the editor:

Plagiarism or self-plagiarism
Data fabrication or falsification
Redundant or dual submission
Other ethical irregularities
5 Detailed Commentary by Manuscript Section

Provide granular, actionable feedback organized by manuscript section:

A
Title & Abstract — Clarity, accuracy, and representativeness of content
B
Introduction — Logical flow, literature coverage, and articulation of research gaps
C
Methods — Rigor, reproducibility, ethical compliance (KEPK/Declaration of Helsinki), and statistical soundness
D
Results — Clarity of presentation, appropriateness of analyses, and avoidance of redundancy
E
Discussion — Interpretation of findings, contextualization within existing literature, acknowledgment of limitations
F
Conclusion — Alignment with evidence presented and strength of claims
G
Language & Style — Clarity, grammar, and adherence to academic conventions
H
Layout & Formatting — Compliance with journal guidelines and visual clarity of figures and tables
6 Statistical Evaluation

If applicable, scrutinize the statistical methods employed, including:

Appropriateness of chosen tests
Correctness of assumptions
Adequacy of sample size
Handling of missing data
Interpretation of p-values and CIs
 

Editorial Decision-Making

The final decision regarding publication rests with the Editors, who synthesize reviewer recommendations alongside their own assessment. The editorial team weighs all submitted reports and may, when circumstances warrant, solicit additional opinions to resolve divergent viewpoints.

Thank You for Your Contribution

Your review forms an indispensable component of this deliberative process. We sincerely thank you for your commitment to scholarly excellence and your invaluable contribution to maintaining the standards of the Journal of Ethnomedicine and Medical Wellness.

editorjemedwell@gmail.com