General Guidelines

Health Benchmark Journal Reviewer Guidelines

General Guidance

The primary objective of peer review is to assist the Editor in making an informed, evidence-based decision aligned with the journal’s editorial standards. Review reports should also aid authors in improving their manuscripts to meet publication criteria. Recommendations for rejecting a paper should clearly outline its major deficiencies to help authors prepare for submission to another journal.

Peer reviewers must adhere to COPE's Ethical Guidelines for Peer-reviewers.

Confidential comments to the Editor are welcome but should not contradict the main points addressed in the report to the authors.

Reviewers must evaluate papers strictly based on the journal’s publication criteria.

Review Conventions:

  1. Familiarization with Policy: Reviewers should review the peer review policy of Health Benchmark Journal before commencing their review.
  2. Objectivity: Reviews should be conducted objectively without personal criticism of the author.
  3. Professionalism: Personal criticism and defamatory or libelous remarks are inappropriate.
  4. Clarity: Reviewers should present their views clearly with supporting arguments and references.
  5. Conflicts of Interest: Reviewers should declare any potential conflicts of interest and decline to review if any competing interests exist.
  6. Confidentiality: Reviewers must respect the confidentiality of the manuscript and not use or share its information.
  7. Passing on Invitations: If a reviewer wishes to pass the invitation to a colleague, they must first contact the journal.
  8. Concerns: Any issues regarding the review process should be addressed with the editorial team.

Assessment Criteria:

Reviewers are requested to evaluate the following aspects of the manuscript:

  1. Key Results: Summarize the outstanding features of the work.
  2. Validity: Identify any significant flaws that should prohibit publication.
  3. Originality and Significance: Comment on the originality and significance, providing relevant references if the conclusions are not novel.
  4. Data and Methodology: Assess the validity of the approach, the quality of data, and the quality of presentation. Ensure all data, including supplementary information, are reviewed. Confirm that reporting is detailed and transparent enough for reproduction.
  5. Statistical Appropriateness: Evaluate the appropriateness of statistical tests and the accuracy of error bars and probability values.
  6. Conclusions: Assess the robustness, validity, and reliability of the conclusions and data interpretation.
  7. Suggested Improvements: Provide constructive suggestions to strengthen the manuscript.
  8. References: Check if the manuscript appropriately references previous literature and suggest additions or exclusions where necessary.
  9. Clarity and Context: Evaluate the clarity of the abstract and the appropriateness of the introduction and conclusions.
  10. Scope and Expertise: Indicate any parts of the manuscript that fall outside the reviewer’s expertise.
  11. Additional Questions: Address any specific questions posed by the editor.
  12. Misconduct Alerts: Report any allegations of publication or research misconduct, such as plagiarism or image manipulation, to the Editor-in-Chief.

Tone and Professionalism:

Before submitting your report, read through it to ensure it is courteous and professional. Avoid unnecessary personal remarks or antagonistic comments about the authors or their competitors. The Editor reserves the right to remove any inappropriate language from the report.

Review Process:

Reviewers must follow the structured review form provided, which includes sections for both qualitative comments and quantitative scoring. This structured approach ensures comprehensive and standardized feedback, reflecting the reviewer’s thought process. All statements should be justified with detailed explanations and supporting references where necessary. Not all criteria will apply to every manuscript due to discipline-specific standards. Reviewers should contact the Editor for guidance when in doubt.

Timeliness:

Health Benchmark Journal is committed to rapid editorial decisions and publication. Reviewers are asked to respond promptly within the agreed timeframe. If a delay is anticipated, reviewers should inform the journal to keep the authors updated and, if necessary, find alternatives.

Thank you for your contribution to Health Benchmark Journal. Your expertise and dedication are crucial to maintaining the high standards of our publication.