Reviewers help ensure the quality, originality, and integrity of research published in the Journal of Basic & Clinical Medical Sciences (JBCMS). Their expertise gives editors evidence-based recommendations and gives authors constructive feedback that improves their manuscripts.

Reviewers are expected to follow the COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers.

JBCMS uses double-anonymized peer review: the authors and the reviewers do not know each other's identities.

The Editorial Office first checks each submission for completeness and compliance with the Guide for Authors, and screens it for similarity. The Editor-in-Chief (EiC) then assesses whether it is suitable for peer review. Manuscripts that pass this stage are assigned to an Editor, who forwards them to a specialty editor. The specialty editor invites at least two independent reviewers. The editorial team assesses the reviewers' reports and makes a recommendation to the EiC, who makes the final decision.

Further details are given in Peer Review Process.

Before accepting or declining an invitation, reviewers should consider whether:

• the manuscript falls within their area of expertise, so that they can give a high-quality review;
• they have any conflict of interest, which must be disclosed to the editor when responding to the invitation;
• they have enough time to complete the review by the deadline.

Reviewers who cannot accept should decline promptly and, if possible, suggest alternative reviewers.

Reviewers are asked to submit their report within seven days of accepting the invitation. Reviewers who expect a delay should email the Editorial Office as soon as possible, and the deadline may be extended.

Reviewers should:

• Read the journal's Aims & Scope and Editorial Policy before agreeing to review;
• Accept only invitations for which they have the relevant subject knowledge;
• Give constructive, relevant, and unbiased feedback that helps authors improve their manuscript;
• Refer to specific pages, paragraphs, or lines, so that each comment can be traced easily;
• Return reviews on time;
• Be courteous and professional in all criticism;
• Use inclusive language, and raise any concerns about language on sensitive topics, such as race, ethnicity, or gender, confidentially with the editor;
• Be aware of their own conscious and unconscious biases;
• Assess the scientific content rather than the language, and alert the editor if language problems seriously impede understanding;
• Keep the manuscript and the review confidential, during and after the review, and delete any copies of the manuscript once the review is complete;
• Report any ethical concerns to the editor, including substantial similarity to other published or submitted work.

Reviewers should not:

• Review a manuscript in which they have an actual or perceived conflict of interest, whether financial, institutional, or personal. A conflict identified after accepting must be disclosed to the Editorial Office at once;
• Reveal their identity in the review;
• Criticize the authors personally or make defamatory comments;
• State a recommendation on acceptance or rejection in comments to the authors, since recommendations go to the editor only;
• Contact the authors about the manuscript;
• Use unpublished material, data, or images from the manuscript for any purpose of their own;
• Pass the review to a colleague or student without the editor's prior approval; 
• Suggest citations to their own work, or that of close colleagues, unless they are scientifically justified;
• Request new information at re-review that was not raised in the first round, unless it is essential, in which case the reason should be explained.

In line with Section 9.7 of the Guide for Authors:

• Reviewers must not upload any part of a manuscript, its figures, its data, or their review report to a generative AI tool or any other third-party service. Manuscripts under review are confidential, and uploading them may expose unpublished work to retention or reuse by third parties.
• Reviewers must not use AI tools to assess the manuscript or to write the review. The critical assessment must be the reviewer's own.
• AI-assisted language tools may be used only to improve the readability of the reviewer's own comments, provided no manuscript content is entered. Any such use must be declared to the Editorial Office.

Reviewers should first read the whole manuscript carefully, taking notes and numbering their observations so that they can be referred to in the report.

After the first reading, each section should be assessed critically. The following questions can guide the evaluation.

Introduction

• Is the study's objective clearly stated?
• Does the introduction give enough background, and are any key studies missing?

Methods

• Are the methods scientifically sound and appropriate for the research question?
• Is there enough detail to allow the study to be replicated?
• Are the statistical methods described clearly and used appropriately?
• For clinical trials, was the trial registered, and do the reported outcomes match those in the registration?

Ethics

• Does the study comply with ethical principles for research involving humans or animals?
• Are ethics approval, informed consent, and data protection described where applicable?

Results

• Are the results presented clearly and consistently with the methods?
• Do the numbers agree across the text, tables, figures, and abstract?
• Do the tables and figures add to the text, or are they redundant?
• Are there details in the Results that belong in the Methods?

Discussion

• Are the findings interpreted in the light of existing evidence?
• Are the study's limitations acknowledged?
• Do the authors avoid claiming causation from associations?

Conclusions

• Are the conclusions supported by the data?
• Do they address the study's objective without repeating the results?

Finally, reviewers should reread the abstract to check that it accurately reflects the content and findings of the manuscript.

Overall Evaluation

After assessing each section, reviewers should consider the study as a whole:

• Is the topic within the journal's scope?
• Is the work original, and what does it add to the field?
• Does the title accurately reflect the study?
• Is the manuscript logically organized and clearly written?
• Are measurements and terminology standard and used consistently?
• Are the references relevant, up to date, and sufficient?
• Are there any ethical concerns or undisclosed conflicts of interest?

Reporting Guidelines

Authors of many types of study are required to follow an established reporting guideline and submit the completed checklist. The following checklists, available from the EQUATOR Network, can help in assessing a manuscript.

Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion

Where relevant, reviewers are encouraged to comment on how the manuscript addresses equity, diversity, and inclusion (EDI). For example:

• Is the study population adequately described, including sex, gender, age, and ethnicity where relevant?
• Are any exclusions justified, and do they limit how widely the findings apply?
• Are differences between groups analyzed and reported where appropriate? See the SAGER guidelines for sex and gender.
• Is the language respectful and free of bias?

Writing Your Review

The report has two parts.

Comments for the Authors

• Begin with a short summary of the manuscript's aim, main findings, and strengths.
• Give specific, actionable feedback, referring to pages, paragraphs, tables, or figures.
• Suggest how unclear sections, arguments, methods, or structure could be improved.
• Keep the tone neutral and professional, and do not mention acceptance or rejection.

Confidential Comments for the Editor

These comments are not shared with the authors. They should:

• explain the recommendation, with specific reasons drawn from the manuscript;
• note any concerns about authorship, conflicts of interest, image integrity, or data integrity;
• note any other concerns, such as plagiarism, duplicate submission, or lack of novelty.

Reviewers choose one of the following recommendations:

• Accept: the manuscript can be published without further changes.
• Minor revision: the manuscript needs limited changes that the editor can check.
• Major revision: the manuscript needs substantial changes and should be reviewed again.
• Reject: the manuscript is unsuitable for publication. The reasons should be explained in detail.

When recommending revision, reviewers should explain clearly what is needed and say whether they are willing to review the revised manuscript.

Authors submit a point-by-point response with their revised manuscript. Minor revisions may be assessed by the editor. Major revisions are usually returned to the original reviewers, where possible.

At re-review, reviewers should:

• check that each point has been adequately addressed;
• assess whether the changes improve the clarity, validity, and overall quality of the manuscript;
• raise any remaining concerns, or new issues arising from the changes.