Guidelines for Reviewers

  • An unpublished manuscript is a privileged document. Please protect it from any form of 'exploitation. Don't cite a manuscript or refer to the work it describes before it has been published and don't use the information that it contains for the advancement of your own research or in discussions with colleagues.

  • Adopt a positive, impartial attitude toward the manuscript under review, with the aim of promoting effective and accurate scientific communication. If you believe that you cannot judge a given article impartially, please return it immediately to the editor.

  • Reviews must be completed by the date stipulated on the review form. If you know that you cannot finish the review within that time, immediately return the manuscript to the editor. If possible, provide the names and addresses of two reviewers who are competent to handle the subject matter.

  • In your review, consider the following aspects of the manuscript:-


  • The title is textually and grammatically correct and not more than 150 characters or 50 words.

  • The title does not contain abbreviations, except standard ones.

  • The title reflects the objectives of the study.


  • The abstract is structured and includes sections of Introduction, Material & Methods, Results and Conclusion.

  • The research problem under study is clearly identified; objectives of the study are mentioned in Introduction.

  • Data collection strategy and primary variables are mentioned in Material & Methods.

  • Major findings of the study are presented in Results, with emphasis on statistical relevance and accuracy.

  • Conclusion is precise and based on the findings of the study.

  • Key words (3-10) are included, based on MeSH.


  • The research problem is identified and stated, based on local, national, regional and global contexts.

  • Brief and relevant epidemiology is included based on literature review.

  • Rationale of the study is given; it justifies the undertaking of the study.

  • The aim and objectives are stated; objectives are in SMART format.

  • References are appropriately cited in Vancouver style.


  • Setting, duration, study design, study population, selection criteria, sample size, sampling technique are mentioned and appropriate.

  • Data collection tools and primary variables of study are described; confounders have been listed and excluded.

  • Procedures that each person will undergo as a research subject have been described in sufficient details to allow analysis of risk and benefit.

  • Ethical considerations are mentioned and relevant; how these are addressed? Ethical approval obtained?

  • Methods of data analysis and main calculations are given; tests of significance are mentioned and are appropriate; significant p value is written.


  • Presentation of results is in logical order starting from demographic data, followed by specific results of the study given section-wise.

  • Text, tables, graphs, charts and illustrations are used, as needed. These are properly numbered and captioned. Explanatory text accompanies each table and figure.

  • Masking of subjects is done appropriately in photographs.

  • Data presented are not duplicated (same results given twice) in text and tables or figures.

  • Tables and figures are accurate and statistical calculations can be done from the data provided in them; all calculations are correct; means are given along with SD, where needed.

  • Group-wise comparisons are presented in tables and figures, where relevant.

  • Tests of significance and p values are appropriate and statistically derivable.


  • Inferences are drawn about the main findings of the study. The results are discussed in the context of objectives of the study.

  • Plausible explanations and alternative explanations for the results are presented and discussed.

  • Any new or unexpected findings are mentioned and their significance discussed; plausible reasons for occurrence of these findings provided.

  • Discussion about statistical results and significance is done with valid interpretations.

  • Comparisons are made to the research studies of other researchers and their results starting from local, national, regional and international literature. Explanations for differences in results from other studies are given.

  • Highlights and limitations of the study are mentioned and the interpretation of results is done keeping these in mind.

  • Negative findings / results are presented and discussed.


  • Conclusion(s) are valid and based on the present study.

  • Recommendations are not from sources outside the present study; they are feasible and acceptable.


  • The Vancouver style of referencing is followed in citations and listing.

  • References provided are relevant to the study.

  • References are given from local, national, regional and international literature; at least 25% of the references are from local sources and/or national sources.

  • Only 10% of references are older than 1–5 years.

  • Only 10% of references are from books or chapters in books.

  • The total number of references does not exceed 50.


  • Acknowledgement is provided to relevant help areas only:

  • a) Financial b) Material c) Technical d) Secretarial

  • Any other item.

FINAL DECISION BY REVIEWER: (Please mark the relevant decision)








NAME: ______________________________ SIGNATURE: _______________________ DATE: _______________



Students who are interested in becoming part of SJAMC Reviewer's Board can submit their intention along with their CV on