Reviewer Responsibility

Reviewer Guidelines

Reviewing a manuscript authored by a fellow scholar is both an honor and a responsibility Despite being difficult and time-consuming, this task is essential to maintaining the caliber, integrity, and rigor of published research. The Annals of the College of Medicine Mosul (ACMM) Editorial Board, contributors, and readers all genuinely value the hard work and devotion of its reviewers.
AREJ employs a strict double-blind peer-review process that is efficient, impartial, and designed to uphold the highest academic standards. In order to provide comprehensive and helpful reviews in a typical six-week timeframe, the journal depends on reviewers with advanced experience, scholarly insight, and sound judgment. The continued standing of ACMM as a reputable scientific journal depends on reviewers who are objective, fair, and academically rigorous in their assessments.

Responsibilities of Reviewers

Reviewers invited by the Editor-in-Chief are expected to:

1. Examine the manuscript critically but constructively, providing thorough comments to improve its scholarly caliber.
   2. Examine updated manuscript versions as needed.
   3. Give their evaluation and turn in reports by the due dates.
   
   4. Give the editor advice on whether the manuscript is ready for publication.
   5. Whether pertaining to the writers or the topic, disclose any possible conflicts of interest.
   6. Report any suspected misconduct in research or academia.
   7. Recommend alternative reviewers if unable to undertake the review.
   8. Always handle the manuscript with the utmost confidentiality.
   9. Not to use any portion of the manuscript's content for his/her own benefit or research.

10.Avoid direct communication with the authors and maintain anonymity throughout the review process.

11.Not delegate the review to another individual without prior approval from the Editorial Office.

12.Ensure that the manuscript represents original, high-quality scholarship.

13.Notify the Editor if they become aware that the manuscript is under simultaneous consideration by another journal.

14.Submit all review reports in English only.

15.Where relevant, provide a scholarly commentary related to the reviewed manuscript for possible publication.

 

Evaluation Criteria

In assessing manuscripts, reviewers should consider the following:

1. Novelty: Does the manuscript present new and original work?
2. Originality: Does it provide a unique contribution distinct from existing literature?
3. Scientific Rigor: Are the methods, data, and analyses sound and reliable?
4. Scholarly Value: Does the work advance knowledge in its field?
5. Ethical Standards: Does the manuscript adhere to accepted research ethics?
6. Structure and Clarity: Is the article well-organized and in compliance with ACMM author guidelines?
7. References: Are citations adequate, accurate, and relevant?
8. Language Quality: Are grammar, spelling, and punctuation correct and professional?
9. Research Integrity: Is there any evidence of plagiarism, data manipulation, or other forms of misconduct?