Reviewer Guideline

Journal of Medical Science and Engineering (JOMSAE) uses a Double-Blind Review process to ensure impartiality. Reviewers are required to strictly adhere to this process.

Purpose of Peer Review at JOMSAE

  1. Verification: To ensure the accuracy and validity of the research prior to publication.

  2. Quality Improvement: To identify and correct errors, enhancing the overall quality of the research.

We extend our heartfelt gratitude to our esteemed reviewers. Your expert and rigorous reviews are integral to maintaining JOMSAE's high-quality standards.

Rules and Instructions for Reviewers

1. Accept Articles Aligned with Your Expertise

  • Only accept articles within your field of expertise.

  • The Editor may not have detailed knowledge of your specific expertise when inviting you. Ensure the topic aligns with your expertise before accepting.

2. Assess Your Availability

  • Reviewing an article requires significant time and effort, typically 1-2 days per article.

  • Accept the review invitation only if you have sufficient time to conduct a thorough review. If uncertain, notify the Editor promptly and suggest an alternative reviewer if possible.

3. Avoid Conflict of Interest

  • Do not review articles where the author's details are disclosed. This violates the double-blind review policy.

  • If you have any professional or personal connection with the author, decline the invitation and inform the Editor.

Process for Review

Confidentiality

  • The review process is strictly confidential. Articles under review must not be shared with any third party.

  • Reviewers are prohibited from contacting the author directly.

  • Any breach of confidentiality will result in strict legal action by JOMSAE.

Evaluation Criteria

Reviewers are expected to evaluate articles based on the following criteria:

1. Originality

  • The article should be original and contribute to the existing body of knowledge.

  • Use tools like Scopus to verify if similar research exists. If the research lacks originality, notify the Editor with references to related work.

2. Structure

  • Ensure the article follows standard guidelines and includes all necessary elements:

    • Title: Clearly describes the content of the article.

    • Abstract: Accurately reflects the article’s content. For graphical abstracts, ensure clarity and relevance.

    • Introduction: Clearly states the research’s objective, hypotheses, and experimental design.

    • Methodology: Methods should be detailed, reproducible, and accurately described, with sufficient information on new techniques or equipment used.

    • Results: Findings must be logically presented and supported by accurate statistical data. Highlight any inconsistencies to the Editor.

    • Conclusion/Discussion: Claims must be reasonable and supported by results. Authors should discuss how findings relate to expectations and prior research.

    • Language: Articles must be clear, user-friendly, and grammatically correct. Highlight any language issues to the Editor.

3. Figures and Tables

  • Assess the necessity, accuracy, and clarity of tables and figures. Ensure they effectively support the data.

4. Previous Research

  • Verify the inclusion of accurate and relevant references to prior works. Note any missing or omitted references.

5. Ethical Issues

  • Plagiarism: If you suspect plagiarism, inform the Editor with supporting references.

  • Fraud: Report any suspicious content or data integrity issues to the Editor.

Reporting Your Evaluation

Once the evaluation is complete, prepare a detailed report including:

  • Key details about the article to confirm your understanding.

  • Constructive and courteous feedback for both the Editor and authors. Avoid personal remarks or identifying details.

  • Highlight deficiencies with proper reasoning.

  • Clearly state whether your comments are based on data analysis or personal opinion.

Recommendations

Categorize your recommendation as follows:

  • Reject: Due to poor quality or out-of-scope content.

  • Accept Without Revision: If the article meets all criteria.

  • Accept with Revisions: Specify if revisions are major or minor.