Reviewer Guidelines for the International Journal of Medical Science and Dental Health:

1. Reviewer's Role and Responsibilities:

   • As a reviewer for the International Journal of Medical Science and Dental Health, you play a crucial role in maintaining the quality and integrity of published research. Your primary responsibility is to critically evaluate the manuscript assigned to you based on scientific merit, originality, relevance, and ethical considerations.
   • Reviewers are expected to provide constructive feedback to authors, helping them improve their work and guiding the editorial decision-making process.
   • Reviewers should maintain confidentiality throughout the review process and refrain from discussing the manuscript with anyone outside the editorial team.

2. Expertise and Objectivity:

   • Reviewers should possess expertise in the subject matter of the manuscript they are assigned to review. If a reviewer feels unqualified to evaluate a particular aspect of the manuscript, they should notify the editor promptly.
   • Reviewers must conduct their evaluations objectively, without any bias based on personal or professional relationships with the authors, institutions, or funding agencies.

3. Timeliness:

   • Reviewers are expected to adhere to the timeline provided by the editor for completing their review. Promptness in submitting the review is essential to ensure timely processing of the manuscript.
   • If reviewers anticipate any delays or are unable to meet the deadline, they should notify the editor as soon as possible.

4. Confidentiality and Conflict of Interest:

   • Reviewers should treat the manuscript and its contents with strict confidentiality. Manuscripts under review should not be shared or discussed with others without prior permission from the editor.
   • Reviewers must disclose any potential conflicts of interest that could bias their evaluation of the manuscript. Conflicts of interest may include personal, professional, or financial relationships with the authors, institutions, or competing organizations.

5. Evaluation Criteria:

   • Reviewers should assess the manuscript based on the following criteria:
     • Originality and significance of the research
     • Clarity and coherence of the presentation
     • Methodological rigor and validity of the study design
     • Adequacy and appropriateness of data analysis
     • Interpretation of results and conclusions drawn
     • Compliance with ethical standards and guidelines
     • Contribution to the advancement of knowledge in the field
   • Reviewers should provide specific comments and suggestions to support their evaluations, highlighting strengths and weaknesses in the manuscript.

6. Constructive Feedback:

   • Reviewers should provide feedback in a courteous and constructive manner, focusing on ways to improve the quality and impact of the manuscript.
   • Criticisms should be justified with reference to relevant literature or scientific principles, avoiding derogatory or inflammatory language.

7. Recommendation:

   • Based on their evaluation, reviewers should recommend one of the following editorial decisions:
     • Accept: The manuscript is suitable for publication without major revisions.
     • Minor revisions: The manuscript requires minor revisions to address specific concerns raised by the reviewer.
     • Major revisions: The manuscript requires significant revisions or additional experiments to strengthen its scientific validity and impact.
     • Reject: The manuscript does not meet the journal's standards for publication.
   • Reviewers should provide clear justification for their recommendation, outlining the reasons for their decision.

8. Final Comments:

   • Reviewers may include any additional comments or suggestions for the editor and authors to consider during the revision process.
   • Reviewers should remain professional and respectful in their communication with the editor and authors, fostering a constructive dialogue aimed at improving the manuscript.