Guidelines for Reviewers

Peer reviewers are central to the quality of the Journal of Medical Sciences (JOMS). These guidelines explain what we ask of reviewers, how to prepare a useful report, and how to handle confidentiality, conflicts of interest and ethical concerns. They complement the journal's Peer Review Policy, Publication Ethics and Use of Generative AI Policy, and follow the COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers.

1. The review model

JOMS uses double-blind peer review: reviewers do not know the identity of the authors, and authors do not know the identity of the reviewers. Each manuscript is assessed by at least two independent external reviewers. The reviewers advise; the handling editor recommends a decision, and the Editor-in-Chief makes the final decision.

2. Before you accept an invitation

Please accept only if you can answer "yes" to all of the following:

Expertise: the manuscript falls within your area of expertise. If you are qualified to assess only part of it (for example, the clinical content but not the statistics), accept and tell the editor which parts you did not assess.
Time: you can submit your report within 14 days.
No conflict of interest: you do not
- work at the same institution as any of the authors;
- have co-authored a publication with any of the authors in the past three years;
- have a close personal relationship, rivalry or collaboration with any of the authors;
- have a financial interest in the outcome of the work;
- have any other interest that could affect, or appear to affect, your judgement.

If you cannot review, please decline promptly through the system. Suggesting a qualified alternative reviewer is very helpful.

3. Confidentiality

Treat the manuscript and all related material as confidential. Do not share, discuss or distribute it.
If you wish to involve a colleague or trainee in the review, ask the editor first and give their name. You remain responsible for the report.
Do not use any data, ideas or text from the manuscript before it is published.
Do not contact the authors directly.
Do not try to identify the authors. If you recognise them anyway, tell the editor, who will decide whether you should continue.
Delete or destroy your copies of the manuscript after you submit your report.

4. Use of generative AI tools

Reviewers must not upload any part of the manuscript, its figures, data or supplementary files, or their own review report into generative AI tools (such as ChatGPT, Gemini or similar services). Doing so breaches confidentiality and may breach the authors' rights. The scientific assessment must be your own. You may use basic spelling and grammar tools to polish the language of your report, provided no manuscript content is entered into them. You are accountable for everything in your report.

5. What to assess

Please consider the following for every manuscript:

Scope and relevance: does the work fit the journal's Aims and Scope? JOMS values rigorous, locally generated evidence from Libya, North Africa and the Middle East. Well-conducted regional studies are worth publishing even if they confirm findings reported elsewhere.
Originality and contribution: what does the manuscript add? Is the gap it addresses clearly stated?
Methods: are the design, setting, sampling and sample size appropriate and clearly described? Could another researcher repeat the study?
Laboratory methods: are methods described in enough detail (including standards such as CLSI or EUCAST for antimicrobial susceptibility testing, quality-control strains, kits and manufacturers)?
Statistics: are the tests appropriate, correctly applied and fully reported (with effect sizes, confidence intervals and exact p-values where relevant)? If you cannot judge the statistics, say so; the editor can request a statistical review.
Results: are they presented clearly and consistently in the text, tables and figures? Do the numbers add up?
Interpretation: are the conclusions supported by the data? Are limitations acknowledged? Are causal claims made from observational data?
Ethics: is there a statement of ethics committee approval and informed consent for studies involving humans, patient data or animals?
References: are they relevant, current and correctly cited? Are key studies missing?
Presentation: is the manuscript clearly written and logically organised? Language problems should be noted but you are not expected to correct them line by line.

Additional points by article type

Article type	Please also check
Original research	Adherence to the relevant reporting guideline: CONSORT (trials), STROBE (observational studies), STARD (diagnostic accuracy), ARRIVE (animal studies).
Systematic and scoping reviews	A reproducible search strategy (databases, dates, search terms), clear inclusion criteria, a PRISMA or PRISMA-ScR flow diagram, and an assessment of study quality or risk of bias.
Narrative reviews	Balanced, up-to-date coverage of the literature, critical synthesis rather than a list of studies, and conclusions that do not go beyond the evidence reviewed.
Case reports and case series	Written patient consent for publication, adequate anonymisation, a clear teaching point, and adherence to the CARE guideline.
Short communications	A single clear finding reported with enough methodological detail to be credible.

6. Ethical concerns

If you suspect plagiarism, duplicate or redundant publication, fabricated or manipulated data or images, undisclosed conflicts of interest, or research conducted without ethical approval, describe your concern in the confidential comments to the editor. Please do not investigate further yourself, and do not contact the authors. The editorial office will handle the concern in line with COPE guidance.

7. Writing your report

A helpful report is specific, constructive and respectful. Please structure it as follows:

Summary: two or three sentences on what the study did and found, to show the editor how you understood it.
Major comments: problems that affect the validity of the findings or conclusions, each explained with a suggested remedy where possible.
Minor comments: points of clarity, presentation, tables, figures and references, with page or line numbers.
Confidential comments to the editor (not shared with the authors): your overall view, and any ethical concerns.

Please:

comment on the work, never on the authors;
avoid personal, sarcastic or dismissive language;
do not ask authors to cite your own work, or any work, unless it is genuinely needed to support the manuscript;
keep your recommendation out of the comments to the authors, because the editor's decision may differ from it.

8. Your recommendation

Choose one recommendation in the review form. The options correspond to the journal's decisions as follows:

Option in the review form	Journal decision	Use when
Accept Submission	Accept	The manuscript can be published as it is, or with trivial corrections.
Revisions Required	Minor revision	Limited changes are needed, and the editor can check them without further review.
Resubmit for Review	Major revision	Substantial changes are needed, and the revised version should be reviewed again.
Decline Submission	Reject	The work has fundamental flaws, or falls outside the journal's scope.

Please avoid the "Resubmit Elsewhere" and "See Comments" options. If you are unsure, choose the closest option and explain in your confidential comments to the editor.

9. Completing a review in the online system

Log in at sebhau.edu.ly/journal/joms/login. The review appears on your dashboard.
Request: read the title and abstract, declare any competing interests, and accept or decline.
Guidelines: read the review guidelines.
Download & Review: download the files and enter your comments for the authors and for the editor. You may upload an annotated file, but first remove your name from it (in Microsoft Word: File → Info → Check for Issues → Inspect Document → Remove All for Document Properties and Personal Information).
Completion: select your recommendation and submit.

10. Deadlines and revised manuscripts

The journal's target for completing a review is 14 days from acceptance of the invitation (see the Editorial Process and Timeline). If you need more time, please contact the editor as soon as possible rather than letting the deadline pass. If you recommended major revision, you may be invited to review the revised version. Please check whether the authors have addressed your comments, and focus on the changes made.

11. Recognition

We are grateful to our reviewers. You may record your review activity in your ORCID or Web of Science reviewer profile without disclosing any confidential details of the manuscript. On request, the editorial office will issue a certificate confirming your contribution as a reviewer.