Guide for reviewers

Expectations and practical guidance for peer reviewers of IUMS journals: how to decide whether to accept a review, read and assess manuscripts, handle ethics, use digital tools responsibly and write constructive reports.

Applies to all IUMS journals using peer review
Guidance v1.0 – last updated April 2025
Related policies: Peer review policy · Research ethics & misconduct · Generative AI & digital tools · Authorship & contributorship

1 Overview & purpose of this guide

Peer reviewers play a central role in maintaining the quality, reliability and fairness of the scholarly record. This guide is designed to support both new and experienced reviewers by setting out clear expectations that are consistent with international standards, including guidance from bodies such as COPE and ICMJE. It applies to all IUMS journals and to all article types that undergo peer review.

The aims of this guide are to:

  • explain your responsibilities when you accept a review invitation;
  • help you decide when to accept or decline a review request;
  • provide a practical framework for reading and assessing manuscripts;
  • describe how to write clear, constructive and respectful review reports;
  • clarify how to handle ethical concerns, confidentiality and conflicts of interest; and
  • outline how IUMS recognises and supports reviewers.

2 The role of peer review at IUMS journals

Peer review is an extension of the scientific process. It helps editors decide which manuscripts to publish, strengthens work that is accepted, and acts as a filter for errors, omissions and misleading interpretations. Thoughtful feedback also has an educational value, especially for early-career researchers.

In most IUMS journals the default model is double-anonymous peer review (authors and reviewers do not know each other’s identities), unless a specific journal uses a different model (single-anonymous, open or post-publication). The review model is described on each journal’s website. Regardless of model, reviewers are expected to apply the same standards of fairness, confidentiality and respect.

Your recommendation is advisory. Editors take your comments into account alongside other reviews, the journal’s aims and scope, and broader considerations such as balance of content and ethical issues. You are not “accepting” or “rejecting” a paper on your own; you are providing expert advice to help editors make informed decisions.

3 Before you accept a review invitation

When you receive an invitation to review, please consider the following questions before accepting:

3.1 Do I have the right expertise?

Accept only if the manuscript is reasonably close to your area of knowledge. You do not need to be an expert on every method used, but you should be able to judge the main question, methods and interpretation. It is acceptable to note in your review which aspects are outside your core expertise.

3.2 Do I have enough time?

Peer review works only when reports are delivered on time. Check the deadline in the invitation. If you cannot complete a thorough review within that timeframe, please decline promptly so that the editor can invite someone else. If you could review but need a small extension, contact the editor before accepting.

3.3 Do I have any conflicts of interest?

Consider whether there are personal, financial, academic or institutional relationships that could reasonably be seen as affecting your impartiality – for example, recent collaborations with the authors, direct competition on the same research question, financial ties to a product being studied, or strong personal or professional disputes. If you are unsure whether a potential conflict is significant, describe it confidentially to the editor and ask for guidance rather than guessing. See Section 5 for more detail.

4 Confidentiality & data protection

Manuscripts sent to you for review – including data, images, protocols and appendices – are confidential documents. They must not be shared, posted online or used for any purpose other than preparing your review, unless the editor explicitly authorises this (for example, when formal co-review with a trainee is agreed; see Section 11).

You must not:

  • discuss the manuscript with anyone outside the editorial process without permission;
  • contact the authors directly about the manuscript;
  • use information from the manuscript for your own research, grants, presentations or teaching before publication, unless explicitly agreed by the editor and authors; or
  • upload the manuscript or substantial parts of it to external tools or services (including general-purpose AI systems) that may store or reuse the content.

Confidentiality continues after the review process. You may mention in general that you serve as a reviewer for specific journals, or record review activity in recognised systems (such as ORCID or reviewer recognition platforms) when allowed, but without revealing manuscript details unless the journal operates a fully open review model.

5 Conflicts of interest (COI)

A conflict of interest exists when your ability to provide an unbiased review could be affected – or reasonably be perceived as affected – by a personal, academic, financial or professional relationship. COIs do not automatically disqualify you from reviewing, but they must be declared so that editors can decide whether it is appropriate to proceed.

Examples include:

  • recent or ongoing collaboration with one or more authors;
  • being from the same department or laboratory as an author;
  • direct competition on the same specific research question;
  • financial relationships with companies or products directly affected by the study; or
  • personal relationships (positive or negative) that could influence your judgement.

If a conflict is significant, you should decline the review. If you think the conflict is minor or manageable, explain it clearly in your response to the editor and wait for their decision. Under no circumstances should you suppress or exaggerate criticism because of personal or financial interests.

6 Use of AI & digital tools in peer review

IUMS has a separate policy on the use of generative AI and digital tools in publishing. In summary:

  • Do not upload confidential manuscripts, review forms or patient data to public AI systems or online tools that may store or reuse content.
  • You may use local or institutionally licensed tools for basic tasks such as grammar checking or reference formatting, but you remain fully responsible for the content of the review.
  • AI systems cannot be listed as reviewers and must not be used to generate entire review reports or replace your expert judgement.

If you use any software beyond standard office and reference management tools, ensure that it complies with your institution’s policies and does not compromise confidentiality.

7 How to read & assess a manuscript

Reviewers differ in style, but many find it helpful to approach the manuscript in two passes: a quick overview to understand the question and main findings, followed by a more detailed reading. For IUMS journals, the following aspects are especially important:

7.1 Fit to journal & significance

Consider whether the manuscript falls within the journal’s scope, addresses a question of medical or public health relevance and adds something meaningful (methods, data, synthesis or perspective). If the work seems clearly better suited to another journal, mention this in confidential comments to the editor.

7.2 Originality & context

Ask whether the study contributes to existing knowledge. Are key recent publications cited and discussed fairly, including work that may challenge the authors’ conclusions? Does the manuscript avoid overstating novelty where similar work exists?

7.3 Methods & study design

For empirical studies, assess whether the design is appropriate to the research question and whether methods are reported in enough detail for replication. Consider:

  • sample size justification;
  • inclusion and exclusion criteria;
  • randomisation and blinding, where relevant;
  • handling of missing data and drop-outs;
  • choice of controls and use of validated instruments.

For reviews and meta-analyses, consider whether search strategies, eligibility criteria and synthesis methods are transparent and reproducible. For qualitative studies, look at sampling, data collection, analytic approach and whether claims are grounded in the data.

7.4 Statistics & analysis

Evaluate whether statistical methods match the data and design, and whether assumptions are addressed. Effect sizes and confidence intervals are often more informative than p-values alone. Be alert to problems such as:

  • inappropriate subgroup analyses;
  • multiple comparisons without adjustment;
  • selective reporting of favourable outcomes.

If detailed statistical review is needed and outside your expertise, flag this for the editor.

7.5 Ethics & reporting standards

Check whether ethics approval, consent and trial registration information (where relevant) are clearly presented and consistent. Consider whether appropriate reporting guidelines (such as CONSORT, PRISMA, STROBE, CARE, ARRIVE and others) appear to have been followed. You do not need to audit every detail but can point to major omissions.

7.6 Results, interpretation & limitations

Assess whether data support the authors’ conclusions, whether limitations are acknowledged and whether alternative explanations are considered. Watch for overgeneralisation beyond the population or setting studied, or for causal claims not warranted by the design (for example, strong causal language in cross-sectional studies).

7.7 Presentation: structure, tables & figures

Consider whether the manuscript is organised logically and written clearly enough for readers to follow the argument. Tables and figures should be understandable without constant reference to the main text, avoid duplication and present data accurately. Note major language issues that impede understanding, but remember that scientific quality is primary; journals may help authors improve language after acceptance.

8 How to write your review

8.1 Tone & professionalism

A good review is constructive, specific and respectful. Use clear, neutral language; criticise the work, not the authors. Avoid sarcasm, personal remarks or comments that could be perceived as discriminatory or demeaning. Remember that authors may be early-career researchers or writing in a second language.

8.2 Suggested structure

You may find the following structure helpful:

  • Brief summary: In a few sentences, summarise what the paper set out to do, how it was done and what was found.
  • Overall assessment: Comment on the study’s importance, originality and validity and its fit with the journal.
  • Major comments: List the most important issues that must be addressed (e.g. fundamental design flaws, serious gaps in reporting, unclear or unsupported conclusions, missing ethics or registration information, serious statistical concerns).
  • Minor comments: Note smaller issues that would improve clarity and quality (e.g. ambiguous sentences, missing references, inconsistent terminology, minor errors in tables or figures, non-essential extra analyses).
  • Confidential comments to the editor (optional): Briefly highlight any concerns you prefer not to share with authors, such as suspicion of plagiarism, duplicate submission, serious ethical problems or your own level of confidence in the review.

8.3 Recommendations

Most journals use categories such as “accept”, “minor revision”, “major revision” or “reject”. Your recommendation should follow logically from your comments. For example:

  • Accept: only small clarifications or corrections needed.
  • Minor revision: study is sound but needs modest changes in wording, structure or limited additional analyses.
  • Major revision: study has potential but requires substantial changes in design, analysis or interpretation.
  • Reject: fundamental flaws that cannot realistically be fixed, or work clearly out of scope.

Avoid rewriting the paper yourself or insisting on unnecessary additions. Your goal is to help authors improve the work within reasonable limits, not to make it reflect your personal preferences or research agenda.

9 Ethical & integrity checks during review

Editors and institutions have primary responsibility for investigating potential misconduct, but reviewers are often the first to notice problems. You are not expected to investigate, but you can alert the editor to concerns such as:

  • unusual patterns in data or figures that suggest fabrication or falsification;
  • overlap with previously published work that might indicate plagiarism or redundant publication;
  • missing or inconsistent information about ethics approval, consent, patient confidentiality or animal welfare;
  • lack of trial registration for clinical trials, or discrepancies between registered and reported outcomes; or
  • image manipulation that appears to change or conceal data rather than apply legitimate adjustments.

If you suspect a serious problem, do not investigate on your own or contact the authors. Instead, briefly describe your concern in confidential comments to the editor. Editors will follow established procedures and may involve institutional research integrity offices where appropriate.

10 Working with editors

Good communication between reviewers and editors supports a fair and efficient process:

  • respond to review invitations as quickly as possible, even if you decline;
  • inform the editor if unexpected events delay your review;
  • if you feel unable to comment on certain aspects (e.g. complex statistics or specialised methods), mention this in your review so the editor can seek additional input;
  • when a revised manuscript is sent back to you, focus on how well the authors have addressed previous comments and avoid raising new issues unless they are critical or arise from new analyses.

Editors may combine suggestions from several reviewers, and the final decision may differ from your recommendation. This is normal and does not mean your review was not valued. Where feasible, journals will notify you of the final decision and may share anonymised comments from other reviewers for educational purposes.

11 Co-reviewing with trainees & colleagues

Involving trainees in peer review can be an excellent educational opportunity, but confidentiality and accountability must be preserved.

  • Do not share a manuscript with students or colleagues without first obtaining permission from the editor.
  • If co-review is approved, ensure that co-reviewers understand and follow the same confidentiality and conflict of interest rules.
  • The main invited reviewer remains responsible for the final report submitted to the journal.
  • Where the journal permits, acknowledge co-reviewers by name in the submission system so that they receive appropriate credit.

Unauthorised sharing of manuscripts, even with well-intentioned trainees, breaches the trust on which peer review depends.

12 Reviewer recognition & support

IUMS journals recognise that peer review requires time, expertise and careful attention. Depending on each journal’s practices, recognition may include:

  • annual or periodic lists of reviewers, where this does not compromise anonymity;
  • certificates of reviewing for your academic and professional records;
  • optional integration with reviewer recognition services or ORCID, where supported; and
  • consideration for editorial board roles for experienced, dependable reviewers.

Some journals may also offer continuing education credits or local recognition schemes. Details are provided on the individual journal websites.

13 What reviewers must not do

To preserve trust in peer review, reviewers must avoid:

  • sharing or discussing the manuscript outside the formal review process without permission;
  • attempting to identify or contact authors when review is anonymous;
  • using data, ideas or text from the manuscript in their own work before publication, unless explicitly allowed;
  • requesting citations to their own work or to specific journals without clear scientific justification;
  • agreeing to review when they know they cannot meet the deadline or provide a fair, unbiased assessment; and
  • submitting a review generated by AI or by another person under their own name.

14 Quick checklist for reviewers

Before you accept

  • Is the manuscript within your area of expertise?
  • Can you complete a thorough review by the deadline?
  • Have you checked for potential conflicts of interest?

While reviewing

  • Have you respected confidentiality and not shared the manuscript without permission?
  • Have you considered study design, methods, statistics, ethics and reporting standards?
  • Have you distinguished clearly between major and minor comments?
  • Is your tone constructive, specific and respectful?

Before submitting your review

  • Does your recommendation follow logically from your comments?
  • Have you declared any aspects that lie outside your expertise?
  • Have you used confidential comments to the editor where needed?
  • Have you removed any identifying information if the review process is anonymous?

15 Support & contact

If you are unsure how to handle a specific situation during peer review – for example a potential conflict of interest, a suspected ethical problem or a technical issue with the review system – please contact the editorial office of the journal handling the manuscript.

General questions about peer review policies across IUMS journals can be directed to:

Guidance version: v1.0 – last updated April 2025. This guide will be reviewed periodically to reflect evolving standards in peer review and research integrity.