Reviewers play a pivotal role in the publication process by ensuring the quality, originality, and integrity of research published in the Niazi Journal of Medical & Dental Sciences (NJMDS). Their expertise helps provide evidence-based recommendations to editors and constructive feedback to authors, refine manuscripts and advance research in medical and dental sciences.

We encourage all reviewers to consult the COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers to adhere to best practices and maintain ethical standards.

NJMDS follows a double-anonymous peer review system, where neither the authors nor the reviewers are aware of each other’s identities.

Manuscripts are first assigned to the Editor-in-Chief (EiC), who performs an initial triage. If the manuscript passes the first threshold, it is then assigned to an Editor, who evaluates it further. The Editor then forward the manuscript to an Associate Editor, who assigns the manuscript to at least two independent reviewers. The editorial team assesses the reviewers’ comments and makes a recommendation to the EiC, who makes the final decision regarding publication.

For more details on the peer review process, please visit Peer Review Process.

We understand that reviewing the manuscript can be time-consuming, and we encourage reviewers to consider their availability before accepting an invitation. If you are unable to complete the review within the allocated timeframe, please decline promptly and, if possible, suggest alternative reviewers to avoid delays in the review process.

Reviewers are expected to submit their reports and recommendations within seven (07) days of accepting the invitation to review. If you anticipate a delay in submitting your review, please email the Editorial Office who may be able to extend your deadline.

Before you accept or decline an invitation to review, consider the following:

• The manuscript aligns with your area of expertise, and you can provide a high-quality review.
• Any potential conflicts of interest must be disclosed to the editor when responding to the invitation.
• You have sufficient time to complete the review and can meet the deadline.

For further guidance on the peer review process, we encourage reviewers to explore valuable resources from the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).

Reviewers should:

• Be aware of the journal’s Aims & Scope, and Editorial Policies before agreeing to review.
• Be knowledgeable about and qualified in the subject matter to be reviewed. If you are a new reviewer, approach the review as a reader of the topic and provide constructive feedback to the best of your ability.
• Provide constructive, relevant, and unbiased feedback that will help authors improve their manuscript.
• Structure feedback, where possible, by citing specific pages, paragraphs, or lines in comments so that the items in question can be easily tracked.
• Return a review in a timely manner. If exceptional circumstances prevent meeting the deadline, contact the Editorial Office as soon as possible to discuss an extension.
• Exercise tact and courtesy when making critiques, ensuring that feedback is professional and respectful.
• Be mindful of inclusive language, particularly when addressing race, ethnicity, gender, or other sensitive topics. If uncertain, these concerns should be raised confidentially with the editor.
• Be aware of and address your conscious or unconscious biases when reviewing a manuscript.
• Review manuscripts for their scientific content rather than their language. However, if language issues significantly impede comprehension, suggest improvements or alert the editor so appropriate assistance can be arranged.
• Maintain the confidentiality of the peer review process by not sharing manuscript information with colleagues or using unpublished material for personal purposes without explicit permission from the editor.
• Report any ethical concerns to the editor, including significant similarities to other published or submitted work.

Reviewers should not:

• Agree to review a manuscript if there is an actual or perceived conflict of interest, including financial, institutional, or personal relationships. All potential conflicts should be disclosed to the editorial office before the invitation is accepted or as soon as the conflict is identified.
• Disclose any identifiable information about themselves in their review, as the peer review process is anonymous.
• Criticize authors personally or make defamatory or libelous comments in the review.
• Allude to rejection or acceptance in comments to authors; provide recommendations on the manuscript’s outcome solely to the editor.
• Attempt to contact authors to discuss a manuscript.
• Use unpublished material, data, or images from the manuscript for personal purposes, including entering them into public tools or databases such as generative AI models.
• Use artificial intelligence tools, such as ChatGPT, to generate peer review reports or analyze manuscript content. 
• Pass the review task to a colleague or assistant without prior approval from the editor.
• Ask for new information during re-review, as re-review is meant to ensure that the initial comments have been addressed. If additional information is necessary, it is important to explain its relevance and provide context and clarity to the authors.

When beginning your review, thoroughly read the manuscript while keeping a blank document or paper handy for notes. Number your observations to clearly reference specific sections in your review report.

Review Framework

After completing your initial reading, focus on assessing the main text critically, applying the same rigor as you would when evaluating a scientific paper. To guide your evaluation, consider the following questions:

Introduction

• Is the study’s objective clearly stated?
• Are any seminal papers missing in the introduction?
• Does the introduction provide adequate context for understanding the background?
• If the manuscript presents new information, is it properly introduced and described?

Methods

• Are the materials and methods scientifically sound and appropriate?
• Is there sufficient information in the methods to allow replication of the study?
• Are statistical tests described clearly and used appropriately?
• Are references to previously published methods sufficient for this study?

Ethics

• Does the study comply with ethical principles for research involving humans or animals?
• Are the appropriate research ethics statements included?
• Does the study include adequate details about ethical approvals, informed consent, and data protection, where applicable?

Results

• Are the results reproducible on the basis of the details provided?
• Do the figures, tables, and legends enhance the manuscript, or are they redundant?
• Are there any methods-related details that should be relocated to the Methods section?

Conclusion

• Do the conclusions support the data presented in the manuscript?
• Is the conclusion clear and aligned with the hypothesis?
• Are results unnecessarily repeated in the conclusion?

Once you have thoroughly read the manuscript, review the abstract to ensure that the authors' claims and statements align accurately with the content and findings of the manuscript.

Overall Evaluation

After evaluating each section of the manuscript, take a step back and assess the study as a whole. Consider its overall relevance, novelty, structure, and compliance with ethical and reporting standards. Use the following questions to guide your evaluation:

Relevance and Novelty

• Is the manuscript topic relevant to the journal’s scope?
• Is the manuscript novel? Will it have a significant impact?
• Does the manuscript’s title appropriately reflect the study?

Structure and Clarity

• Is the manuscript organized logically and written clearly?
• Are the abstract and conclusions consistent with the data and findings?
• Are standard measurements and terminology used consistently?

References and Ethics

• Are references relevant, recent, and sufficient to support the study?
• Are there any perceived ethical concerns or conflicts of interest?

Reporting Guidelines

For certain types of original research, authors are required to follow established reporting guidelines and submit the relevant checklist to ensure transparency and reproducibility. The following checklists may assist you during your review:

Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion (EDI)

We encourage reviewers to reflect on whether the manuscript sufficiently incorporates EDI in its research and evaluation processes. Where appropriate, please provide comments on EDI considerations, guided by the following questions:

• How does the manuscript engage with human differences and/or power structures? Are notions of EDI appropriately integrated into the issues addressed?
• Does the study explore matters relevant to EDI in a thoughtful and nuanced manner?
• What assumptions underlie the inclusion (or exclusion) of EDI considerations, and how do these factors impact a study’s overall quality or focus?
• Are there additional ways the authors could have better engaged with EDI in their research or manuscript?

Writing Your Review

When writing your review, keep the following in mind:

• Begin with a concise summary of the manuscript’s aim, strengths, and main findings.
• Provide constructive, actionable feedback that helps both authors and editors.
• Refer to specific sections, tables, or figures when raising concerns or suggesting improvements.
• Maintain a neutral tone and avoid personal criticism.
• Avoid recommending excessive citations to your own or closely related work unless essential.

Confidential Comments for the Editor

In the confidential comments section, provide a detailed evaluation of the manuscript for the editorial team. These comments are not shared with the authors and should include the following:

• Clearly explain your recommendation (accept, revise, or reject), supported by specific observations from the manuscript.
• Highlight any issues related to authorship, conflicts of interest, figure authenticity, or data integrity that could raise ethical questions.
• Mention any other factors that may affect the manuscript’s integrity or its suitability for publication, such as concerns about plagiarism, duplicate submission, or insufficient novelty.

Comments for the Authors

When providing comments to the authors:

• Focus on constructive and actionable feedback that balances the manuscript's strengths with areas for improvement.
• Use clear references to specific pages, paragraphs, or figures to ensure authors can address your suggestions effectively.
• Maintain a neutral and professional tone, avoiding personal criticism or overly harsh language, and refrain from alluding to acceptance or rejection in your comments.
• Offer specific recommendations for clarifying ambiguous sections, strengthening arguments with additional evidence, improving methodology, or restructuring content for better clarity and flow.

The authors are required to submit a detailed list of changes made in response to reviewer comments, along with any necessary clarifications or explanations. Minor revisions may be assessed by the editor, whereas major revisions are typically returned to the original reviewers for further evaluation, if available.

As a reviewer, your role in the revision process is to determine whether the authors have adequately addressed the concerns raised during the initial review and assess if the revised manuscript meets publication standards. When evaluating revisions:

• Review the authors’ point-by-point responses to ensure that all issues have been appropriately addressed.
• Assess whether the changes improve the manuscript’s clarity, validity, and overall quality.
• Provide additional feedback if unresolved concerns remain or if new issues are identified.