Reviewer Guidelines
Reviewers help maintain scientific quality and protect research integrity in tropical medicine.
Principles of Peer Review
Reviewers provide objective, constructive feedback that strengthens manuscripts and supports editorial decisions. Confidentiality and impartiality are essential throughout the review process.
JTMH values timely reviews that focus on study design, methodology, ethical compliance, and clarity of conclusions.
What to Evaluate
Methods
Assess study design, analysis, and reproducibility.
Results
Confirm that conclusions match the data.
Ethics
Check approvals, consent, and data use.
Clarity
Provide feedback on structure and readability.
Review Steps
Accept Invite
Confirm expertise and availability.
Assess Manuscript
Review methods, results, and ethics.
Provide Feedback
Offer constructive comments and recommendations.
Submit Report
Deliver a clear summary for editors.
Join Our Reviewer Network
Help advance tropical medicine research by serving as a reviewer.
Contact us: [email protected]
Conflict of Interest
Reviewers should decline assignments where personal, financial, or collaborative conflicts may affect impartiality.
Constructive Feedback
Provide specific, actionable comments that help authors improve their work. Highlight strengths alongside weaknesses and focus on methodological clarity, data interpretation, and relevance to tropical medicine.
Avoid personal language and remain respectful. The goal is to support scientific improvement while maintaining a fair and transparent review process.
Confidentiality and Ethics
Manuscripts under review are confidential. Do not share content or use unpublished data in your own work. If you suspect ethical concerns, notify the editor rather than contacting authors directly.
Report suspected plagiarism, duplicate publication, or data irregularities through the editorial office so they can be addressed appropriately.
Review Structure
Organize your review by commenting on study objectives, methods, results, and interpretation. Specific notes on study design, sample selection, and statistical analysis are especially helpful for editors.
Summarize your overall recommendation in a clear conclusion and highlight any essential revisions that must be addressed before acceptance.
Use the confidential comments section to inform editors about sensitive concerns such as ethical risks or suspected misconduct. Avoid placing such issues in comments to authors unless the editor requests it. Provide numbered comments to authors so they can respond point by point, and separate major issues from minor edits to help prioritize revisions. This structure improves efficiency and reduces confusion during revision cycles for both authors and editors across multiple rounds of review and feedback.
