The International Journal of Medical Science and Dental Health (IJMSDH) greatly appreciates the valuable contribution of its reviewers in maintaining the quality, integrity, and credibility of scholarly publishing. Peer reviewers play a fundamental role in ensuring that manuscripts are evaluated fairly, objectively, confidentially, and according to internationally accepted scientific and ethical standards.

These Reviewer Guidelines have been developed to assist reviewers in conducting professional, constructive, and unbiased manuscript evaluations. The journal follows a Double-Blind Peer Review process and encourages reviewers to perform their responsibilities in accordance with internationally recognized principles of publication ethics and best practices in scholarly publishing.

Role of Reviewers

Reviewer Eligibility

Accepting a Review Invitation

Reviewers are expected to conduct manuscript evaluations professionally, ethically, and objectively. Their recommendations assist the Editorial Board in making informed editorial decisions while helping authors improve the quality of their research.

Reviewers are expected to:

• Provide fair, objective, and evidence-based evaluations.
• Assess manuscripts solely on their scientific merit, originality, and relevance.
• Submit review reports within the requested review period.
• Support comments with clear scientific reasoning and appropriate references where applicable.
• Respect cultural, institutional, and geographical diversity without discrimination.
• Immediately inform the Editorial Office if they are unable to complete the review.

All manuscripts received for peer review are confidential documents. Reviewers must not disclose, discuss, copy, distribute, or use unpublished manuscript content for personal research or any other purpose without prior permission from the Editorial Office.

Reviewers should not:

• Share manuscripts with colleagues or third parties without editorial approval.
• Use unpublished data or ideas for personal benefit.
• Contact the authors directly regarding the manuscript.
• Retain copies of confidential manuscripts after completing the review.

Reviewers must disclose any actual, potential, or perceived conflicts of interest before accepting a review assignment. A conflict of interest may arise from personal relationships, institutional affiliations, financial interests, research collaborations, or academic competition.

If a conflict exists, reviewers should:

• Decline the review invitation.
• Immediately notify the Editorial Office.
• Avoid participating in any editorial decision related to the manuscript.

Reviewers should evaluate manuscripts comprehensively using internationally accepted scientific and ethical standards. Recommendations should be based on the overall quality and contribution of the research.

Reviewers are encouraged to evaluate:

• Originality and novelty of the research.
• Scientific significance and contribution to the field.
• Study design and research methodology.
• Statistical analysis and interpretation of results.
• Ethical compliance and research integrity.
• Quality of figures, tables, and supplementary materials.
• Organization, clarity, and readability of the manuscript.
• Accuracy and relevance of references.
• Consistency between objectives, results, discussion, and conclusions.

Review reports should be respectful, professional, and constructive. Comments should help authors improve the scientific quality of their manuscript rather than simply identify weaknesses.

Constructive review reports should:

• Clearly identify the strengths and weaknesses of the manuscript.
• Provide specific suggestions for improvement.
• Use professional and respectful language.
• Distinguish between essential revisions and optional recommendations.
• Avoid personal criticism or inappropriate language.

After completing their evaluation, reviewers should recommend an editorial decision based solely on the scientific quality, originality, methodological soundness, ethical compliance, and overall contribution of the manuscript. The final publication decision remains the responsibility of the Editor-in-Chief or the assigned Editor.

Reviewers may recommend one of the following decisions:

• Accept: The manuscript is suitable for publication with no or only minor editorial corrections.
• Minor Revision: The manuscript requires small revisions before acceptance.
• Major Revision: Significant improvements are required before the manuscript can be reconsidered.
• Reject: The manuscript does not meet the journal's scientific, methodological, or ethical standards for publication.

Reviewers should clearly justify their recommendation with constructive comments that assist both the authors and the Editorial Office.

Reviewers may use AI-assisted tools only for limited language or grammar support where appropriate. However, confidential manuscript content must not be uploaded to public AI platforms or third-party services that could compromise confidentiality or intellectual property.

• AI tools must not replace the reviewer's independent scientific judgment.
• Reviewers remain fully responsible for the accuracy, fairness, and confidentiality of their review reports.
• Confidential manuscript content must never be disclosed to unauthorized persons or external systems.

Reviewers are expected to uphold the highest standards of publication ethics and research integrity throughout the review process.

Reviewers should promptly notify the Editorial Office if they identify:

• Possible plagiarism or duplicate publication.
• Data fabrication, falsification, or image manipulation.
• Ethical concerns involving human or animal research.
• Undisclosed conflicts of interest.
• Any other form of suspected research or publication misconduct.

All concerns should be reported confidentially and supported, where possible, with appropriate evidence or explanation.

IJMSDH aims to provide authors with a timely and efficient peer review process. Reviewers are therefore encouraged to submit their review reports within the timeframe specified in the review invitation.

• Accept or decline the invitation as soon as possible.
• Complete the review within the requested review period whenever feasible.
• Inform the Editorial Office promptly if additional time is required.

IJMSDH sincerely appreciates the valuable contribution of its reviewers in maintaining the quality and integrity of scholarly publishing. Subject to the journal's policies and reviewer preferences, reviewers may receive formal acknowledgement, reviewer certificates, or recognition through appropriate academic services while maintaining the confidentiality of the peer review process.

Questions regarding reviewer responsibilities, ethical issues, conflicts of interest, confidentiality, or the peer review process may be directed to the Editorial Office using the official contact information available on the journal website. The Editorial Team is committed to supporting reviewers and maintaining a fair, transparent, and ethical review process.