Reviewers Roles and Responsibilities

The reviewing process demands a significant investment of time; crafting a review report can be nearly as labor-intensive as composing a manuscript. However, the effort is highly rewarding, benefiting both the reviewer and the broader community.

COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer-Reviewers:

The COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers set out the basic principles and standards to which all peer reviewers should adhere during the peer-review process. (publicationethics)

Reviewers:

  • Ensure the robust adherence to scientific standards through active participation in the peer-review system.
  • Safeguard the journal's integrity by discerning and addressing invalid research, contributing to the overall quality of the publication.
  • Fulfill a sense of responsibility to the community and one's specific research domain.
  • Cultivate connections with reputable colleagues and affiliated journals, thereby enhancing opportunities to join Editorial Boards.
  • Contribute to the prevention of ethical lapses by identifying issues like plagiarism and research fraud, leveraging their expertise in the subject area.
  • Demonstrate professional courtesy by recognizing the interchangeable roles of authors and reviewers, as reviewers reciprocate the same consideration they receive when fulfilling the role of authors.

The peer-review process

Peer Review Policy

Once a manuscript clears the initial screening, it is sent for peer review.

  • Double-blind:
    We use a review process in which the names of reviewers and authors are not revealed to each other. Generally, we send the article to 3-4 reviewers.

1. Getting started

Before you accept or decline an invitation to review, consider the following questions:

  • The article should match your area of expertise. 
  • If you have any potential conflict of interest, disclose this to the editor when you respond.
  • Review process requires time and dedication– before you accept, please make sure you can meet the deadline.
  • Respond to the invitation within two weeks.

2- How to access the review file

Confidential material

If you accept to review, the materials you receive should be considered confidential documents. These should not be shared with anyone without prior authorization from the editor.

How to log in and access your review

Your review will be managed via the JLMDC submission system. The Lahore Medical & Dental College Journal accepts articles via OJS (open journal system).There is a generic login link for each article. To access the paper and deliver your review, click on the link in the invitation email you received, which will bring you to the submission and review system.

Guidelines for Reviewers:

Before writing the review, please familiarize yourself with journal-specific guidelines (these will be noted in the journal’s guide for authors available on the link). Here are some tips about handling specific parts of the paper.

The Review:  When reviewing the article, please keep the following points in mind.

Originality:

This manuscript constitutes a valuable contribution to the existing literature. Does the question exhibit originality and a well-defined scope? Do the results represent a notable advancement in current knowledge? Is the use of the English language appropriate and easily comprehensible?

Significance:

Results should be interpreted appropriately.

Does the results hold significance? Are all the conclusions duly justified and supported by the obtained results?

Quality of Presentation:

  • Please check that the article is written in a suitable manner. The data and analyses are presented in an appropriate fashion.
  • Title: Does it effectively convey the essence of the article?
  • Abstract: Does it accurately encapsulate the content of the article?

Scientific Soundness:

Engaging for the reader:  Do the conclusions captivate the intended readership of the journal? Will the paper appeal to a broad readership, or is it likely to be of interest to limited audience? (Please refer to the Aims and Scope of the journal.)

General Worth/Advantage of the Research: 

Does publishing this work offer an overall benefit? Does the research contribute to advancing current knowledge? Have the authors addressed a significant, longstanding question through intelligent experiments?

Introduction:

This portion of the manuscript should adopt a deductive approach, outlining the background and rationale for the study, referencing national, regional, and international literature. Additionally, it should succinctly articulate the study's purpose. By the conclusion of the introduction, the author is expected to furnish a roadmap that delineates the main points to be covered.

Methodology: This section should include the following, without subheadings, in an organised manner.

  • Ethical review statement
  • Study design and settings
  • Study duration
  • Define how the data was collected, the sampling method, and sample size calculations 
  • Inclusion and exclusion criteria
  • Provide specifics about the apparatus (including the name and address of the manufacturer, if applicable) and/or drugs or chemicals utilized. Use the generic names of the drugs or chemicals, including the dose(s) and route(s) of administration. Clearly outline the statistical details, including the tests applied, and specify the statistical software package used, along with its version.

For patients, age, sex, and mean age ± standard deviation is provided. Statistical method employed are clearly mentioned and specifies any general computer program, if utilized.

Results:

The findings should substantiate the assertions. This section ought to concisely present the results using text, graphs, tables, and figures to convey the statistical outcomes. Steer clear of repeated  presentations of data, whether in tables, figures, or within the text.

Discussion:

The aim of the discussion is to interpret and elucidate the significance of research findings in the context of existing knowledge pertaining to the investigated research problem. Additionally, it should expound upon any newfound understanding or fresh insights gained after considering the findings. Clearly states whether the hypothesis posited in the article is validated, refuted, or inconclusive. Concludes the section by acknowledging the strengths and limitations of the study.

Conclusion(s): Concisely recap the key findings of the study without overemphasizing them. Avoid introducing any findings or benefits that were not explicitly stated in the results. 

Article Types Considered

 (Original Research)

  • Original Data and Trials
    - Submissions should provide data proposing innovative approaches to enhance the systems, processes, and tools associated with delivering care.
  • Policy Research and Observational Analyses
    - Submissions should detail the feasibility, cost-effectiveness, implementation, or outcomes of policies related to healthcare delivery. This encompasses a range of policy topics, including but not limited to health care reform, health information technology, delivery and payment regulation, quality improvement, and comparative delivery innovation.

 (Review Articles, Case reports, Short communication, Clinical notes, Mini-Review)

  • Submissions should consist of a critical, systematic review of literature addressing issues relevant to healthcare delivery. The reviews should concentrate on a specific topic.

     
     

Into Practice (Case Studies)

  • Submissions should narrate instances in which individuals encountered challenges in healthcare delivery. The article should outline the nature of the challenge, available options, the decision-making thought process, and the lessons derived from the experience.

Visualizations of Data

After ensuring the robustness of the methodology, analyze any presented data through figures, tables, or images to enhance reader interaction and deeper engagement with the research post-publication.

 Ethical considerations

Experiments involving patients or animals must be thoroughly documented. Ethical approval from the author's host organization is a prerequisite for submission to JLMDC. Please review the journal-specific guidelines for detailed instructions in such cases. (available from the journal’s homepage, accessible via https://jlmdc.lmdc.edu.pk/index.php/lmdc/guidelines#ethical

3. Structuring your review

Your review plays a crucial role in the editor's decision to publish the article and provides valuable insights for the author to enhance their manuscript. Please maintain a courteous and constructive tone in your comments, avoiding ad hominem remarks or personal details, including your name. Provide clear explanations and support for your judgments to ensure both editors and authors comprehend the reasoning behind your comments. Clearly indicate whether your comments represent your personal opinion or are substantiated by data and evidence.

Checklist

The Lahore Medical & Dental College Journal follows a specific format, such as a reviewer proforma, to provide instructions for structuring your feedback. Review form

Editor’s Decision:

The editor ultimately decides whether to accept or reject the article. The editor will weigh all views and may call for another opinion or ask the author for a revised paper before making a decision.