Review Guidelines

1. Peer-Review Model

IJRMHS follows a double-blind peer-review process, in which the identities of authors and reviewers are concealed from one another during the review process.

Manuscripts undergo an initial editorial assessment to determine their suitability for the journal. Submissions considered appropriate may be sent to independent reviewers with relevant subject expertise. The review process evaluates the manuscript's originality, scientific validity, research design, methodology, interpretation of findings, ethical compliance, and relevance to the journal's scope.

• Author identities are concealed from reviewers.
• Reviewer identities are concealed from authors.
• Each manuscript is evaluated by at least two independent expert reviewers.
• Editorial decisions are based on reviewer recommendations and academic merit.

The review process is conducted transparently, fairly, and without discrimination based on nationality, institutional affiliation, gender, or personal beliefs.

Editorial decisions are made by the responsible editor after considering the reviewers' assessments and the overall scholarly merit of the submission. Reviewers provide recommendations, while final publication decisions remain the responsibility of the journal's editorial team.

2. Reviewer Responsibilities

2.1 Scientific and Academic Assessment

Reviewers are expected to:

• Evaluate manuscripts objectively and impartially.
• Assess the relevance and significance of the research question.
• Examine the appropriateness of the study design, methods, and data analysis.
• Evaluate whether the results support the conclusions.
• Identify methodological limitations and areas requiring clarification.
• Assess the relevance of the cited literature and the contribution to existing knowledge.
• Provide constructive, specific, and evidence-based comments to support editorial assessment and manuscript improvement.

2.2 Confidentiality

Manuscripts received for review must be treated as confidential documents. Reviewers must not share, reproduce, distribute, or discuss manuscript content with unauthorized individuals.

Unpublished information, data, methods, and findings must not be used for personal, professional, or research advantage. Reviewers must not disclose their review reports or the contents of the manuscript except as authorized through the journal's editorial process.

Confidentiality obligations continue after the review assignment has been completed.

2.3 Professional Conduct

Reviewers must provide respectful, objective, and academically appropriate feedback. Personal criticism of authors is unacceptable. Comments should focus on the scientific content, methodology, interpretation, and presentation of the manuscript.

3. Conflicts of Interest

Reviewers must disclose any actual, potential, or perceived conflicts of interest that could affect their impartiality. Such conflicts may include:

• Recent or ongoing research collaboration with an author.
• Personal or professional relationships that may influence judgment.
• Institutional or supervisory relationships.
• Financial interests, funding relationships, or commercial affiliations relevant to the research.
• Direct academic competition or other circumstances that could compromise objective evaluation.

Reviewers who cannot provide an impartial assessment should decline the invitation or inform the editor promptly so that appropriate arrangements can be made.

4. Research Ethics and Potential Misconduct

Reviewers are expected to remain alert to potential ethical or scientific concerns, including:

• Plagiarism and inappropriate reuse of published material.
• Duplicate or redundant publication.
• Suspected fabrication or falsification of research data.
• Inappropriate manipulation or presentation of images, tables, or statistical results.
• Inadequate reporting of research involving human participants or animals.
• Missing or unclear ethics approval or informed consent information, where applicable.
• Undisclosed conflicts of interest.
• Citation manipulation or other practices that may compromise scholarly integrity.
• Inconsistencies between the reported methodology, results, and conclusions.

Any concerns should be communicated confidentially to the handling editor with sufficient explanation to support further assessment. Reviewers should avoid making unsupported allegations or independently investigating suspected misconduct beyond their role.

5. Evaluation Criteria

Reviewers should assess manuscripts according to the nature of the study and the relevant standards of the discipline.

5.1 Originality and Scientific Contribution

• Clarity of the research question and objectives.
• Identification of the research gap.
• Originality and significance of the findings.
• Contribution to medicine, public health, healthcare, or related health sciences.

5.2 Research Design and Methodology

• Suitability of the study design for the research question.
• Adequacy of participant selection, sampling, and data collection, where applicable.
• Appropriateness of analytical and statistical methods.
• Transparency and reproducibility of the reported procedures.
• Adequacy of information concerning limitations and possible sources of bias.

5.3 Results and Interpretation

• Accuracy and clarity of the reported findings.
• Consistency between the results and conclusions.
• Appropriate interpretation of statistical or qualitative evidence.
• Consideration of alternative explanations and study limitations.
• Avoidance of unsupported clinical, public health, or scientific claims.

5.4 Research Ethics and Reporting

• Appropriate reporting of ethics approval and informed consent, where required.
• Protection of participant privacy and confidentiality.
• Compliance with relevant research reporting standards.
• Adequate disclosure of funding and conflicts of interest.
• Responsible presentation of data, figures, tables, and supplementary materials.

5.5 Literature and Scholarly Presentation

• Appropriate engagement with relevant and reliable literature.
• Balanced and accurate referencing.
• Logical organization and clarity of argument.
• Readability, terminology, and quality of scientific communication.

The criteria applied should be appropriate to the manuscript type. For example, clinical studies, observational research, systematic reviews, and case reports may require different methodological and reporting considerations.

6. Responsible Use of Artificial Intelligence

Reviewers must protect manuscript confidentiality when using any digital or artificial intelligence tools. Manuscripts and associated confidential materials must not be uploaded to external AI systems or third-party services where confidentiality, data protection, or the journal's requirements cannot be assured.

AI tools must not replace the reviewer's independent scholarly judgment. Reviewers remain responsible for the accuracy, fairness, confidentiality, and integrity of their assessments and must follow the journal's applicable AI policy.

7. Timeliness of Reviews

Reviewers are expected to complete their assessments within the deadline communicated by the editorial office. If additional time is required, reviewers should notify the editor promptly and request an extension.

If a reviewer is unable to complete the assignment, the editor should be informed as soon as possible so that an alternative reviewer can be considered. Timely reviews help the journal maintain an efficient and consistent editorial process.

8. Review Recommendations

Reviewers may recommend one of the following outcomes:

Each recommendation should be supported by clear, constructive, and evidence-based comments. Reviewers should distinguish between essential revisions and optional suggestions. The final decision rests with the responsible editor.

9. Review Reports and Editorial Accountability

Review reports should provide sufficient detail to explain the reviewer's assessment and recommendations. Reviewers should identify major methodological, ethical, interpretative, or reporting concerns and explain how these affect the manuscript's suitability for publication.

The editorial office maintains appropriate records of editorial and peer-review activities. Concerns about reviewer conduct, confidentiality, conflicts of interest, or research integrity may be addressed through the journal's applicable editorial procedures.

10. Commitment to Ethical Peer Review

IJRMHS seeks to maintain a peer-review environment based on fairness, confidentiality, scientific rigor, and responsible scholarly communication. Reviewers contribute to the quality of the journal by providing independent assessments that help editors make informed decisions and help authors strengthen their work. Through this process, IJRMHS aims to support the dissemination of credible research and promote responsible academic communication in medicine, public health, and healthcare.