Journal of Clinical Medicine Current Research

Reviewer Guidelines for Journal of Clinical Medicine: Current Research

1. General Principles

• Constructive Feedback: Provide balanced and helpful comments that guide authors in improving their manuscript.
• Objectivity: Assess the work based on scientific merit, clarity, and relevance, not personal preferences.
• Confidentiality: Treat all submissions as confidential documents. Do not share, discuss, or use the work for personal purposes.
• Ethical Considerations: Ensure the manuscript adheres to ethical standards regarding patient data, conflicts of interest, and research integrity.

2. Review Structure

Organize your review clearly and concisely to help editors and authors understand your evaluation.

1. Summary of the Manuscript
   • Provide a brief overview of the research, including the study's objectives, methods, findings, and conclusions.
   • Highlight the key strengths of the manuscript.
2. Major Comments (Critical Issues)
   • Identify significant flaws, gaps, or issues in:
     • Originality and Relevance: Is the research novel and important for the field of clinical medicine?
     • Methodology: Are the study design, sample size, statistical analyses, and data collection methods appropriate and well-documented?
     • Results: Are the findings clear, accurate, and sufficiently supported by data?
     • Interpretation: Are the conclusions justified based on the results?
   • Provide actionable suggestions for improvement.
3. Minor Comments (Technical and Stylistic Suggestions)
   • Highlight smaller issues such as:
     • Typographical errors, grammar, or formatting issues.
     • Inconsistencies in data presentation (e.g., figures, tables).
     • Missing references or incomplete citations.
     • Suggestions for clarifying specific sections (e.g., introduction, methods, discussion).
4. Recommendation
   • Select one of the following recommendations based on your assessment:
     • Accept: Minor or no revisions needed.
     • Minor Revisions: Requires small adjustments but is publishable.
     • Major Revisions: Substantial changes are required; re-evaluation may be needed.
     • Reject: The manuscript has significant flaws and cannot be published in its current form.

3. Review Criteria

The following criteria should guide your evaluation:

1. Scientific Rigor
   • Is the study methodologically sound and free of major flaws?
   • Are the research questions or hypotheses clearly defined?
2. Originality and Significance
   • Does the research add new insights to clinical medicine?
   • Is it relevant to current clinical practice or future research?
3. Methodology
   • Are the study design, ethical considerations, and patient/participant consent appropriately addressed?
   • Is the sample size adequate, and are statistical methods properly applied?
4. Results and Presentation
   • Are the results well-organized, clear, and statistically sound?
   • Are tables, figures, and supplementary materials relevant and properly formatted?
5. Interpretation and Conclusions
   • Are the findings interpreted objectively without exaggeration?
   • Are the conclusions supported by the data?
6. Ethics and Reporting Standards
   • Does the manuscript comply with ethical research guidelines (e.g., informed consent, IRB approval)?
   • Are conflicts of interest, funding, and disclosures transparently stated?

4. Tone and Professionalism

• Use clear, professional, and respectful language.
• Avoid harsh criticism; instead, phrase comments as constructive suggestions.
• Provide specific examples to support your feedback.
• Encourage clarity and rigor in future revisions.

Example:
“The study design is robust; however, the sample size is relatively small. Expanding the cohort or providing a power analysis would strengthen the validity of the conclusions.”

5. Timeliness

• Complete your review within the allocated time (e.g., 14-21 days) to avoid delaying publication.
• If you need an extension, promptly communicate with the editorial office.

6. Ethical Responsibilities

• Report any potential plagiarism, data fabrication, or ethical concerns to the editors.
• Decline reviews if there is a conflict of interest (e.g., collaboration, competing research).

7. Final Notes

Your feedback plays a crucial role in maintaining the quality and integrity of the Journal of Clinical Medicine. A high-quality review helps authors refine their work and ensures that only valuable and rigorous research contributes to the advancement of clinical medicine.