Reviewers’ Guidelines


Reviewing a manuscript written by a fellow scientist is a privilege. However, it is a time-consuming responsibility. Hence, IJSH’s Editorial Board, authors, and audiences appreciate your willingness to accept this responsibility and your dedication. IJSH adheres to a double anonymized peer-review process that is rapid, fair, and ensures a high quality of articles published. In doing so, IJSH needs reviewers who can provide insightful and helpful comments on submitted manuscripts with a turnaround time of about 2 weeks. Reviewers are selected based on their expertise within the topic area of the submission, and their purpose is to assist the authors and the journal by providing a critical review of the manuscript. To apply as a reviewer in our journal, please send your request with your resume to The editorial board of the journal will review your resume and will be in contact with you.

Maintaining IJSH as a scientific journal of high quality depends on reviewers with a high level of expertise and an ability to be objective, fair, and insightful in their evaluation of manuscripts. We hope that the information provided here will help making your work easier.

Before accepting to review a manuscript, reviewers should ensure that:

  •  The manuscript is within their area of expertise.
  •  They can dedicate the appropriate time to conduct a critical review of the manuscript.


Conflict of Interest

“Conflict of interest (COI) exists when there is a divergence between an individual’s private interests (competing interests) and his or her responsibilities to scientific and publishing activities such that a reasonable observer might wonder if the individual’s behavior or judgment was motivated by considerations of his or her competing interests”. WAME

“Reviewers should declare their relationships and activities that might bias their evaluation of a manuscript and recuse themselves from the peer-review process if a conflict exists”. ICMJE



Manuscripts are confidential materials given to a reviewer in trust for the sole purpose of critical evaluation. Reviewers should ensure that the review process is confidential. Details of the manuscript and the review process should remain confidential during and after the review process.

Reviewers who seek assistance from a colleague in the performance of a review should acknowledge these individuals' contributions in the written comments submitted to the editor. These reviewers must maintain the confidentiality of the manuscript as outlined, which may prohibit the uploading of the manuscript to software or other AI technologies where confidentiality cannot be assured. Reviewers must request permission from the journal prior to using AI technology to facilitate their review. Reviewers should be aware that AI can generate authoritative-sounding output that can be incorrect, incomplete, or biased.

“Respect the confidentiality of the peer review process and refrain from using information obtained during the peer review process for your own or another’s advantage, or to disadvantage or discredit others”. COPE


Reviews should be honest and objective and not be influenced by:

  •  The origin of the manuscript
  •  Religious, political or cultural viewpoint of the author
  •  Gender, race, ethnicity or citizenry of the author


Review reports

In evaluating a manuscript, reviewers should focus on the following:

  • Novelty
  • Scientific reliability
  • Originality
  • Valuable contribution to the science
  • Adding new aspects to the existed field of study
  • Ethical aspects
  • Structure of the article submitted and its relevance to authors’ guidelines
  • References provided to substantiate the content
  • Grammar, punctuation and spelling
  • Scientific misconduct

Reviewers should write review report in English only and observe that the author(s) have followed the instruction for authors, editorial policies and publication ethics.

The report should be accurate, objective, constructive and unambiguous. Comments should be backed by facts and constructive arguments with regards to the content of the manuscript.

Reviewers should not rewrite the manuscript; however, necessary corrections and suggestions for improvements should be made.



Reviewers should only accept a manuscript when they are confident that they can dedicate appropriate time in reviewing. Thus, reviewers should review and return manuscripts in a timely manner.

Finally, the duties of reviewers as outlined in Publishing Ethics Resource Kit include: Contribution to editotial decision, Promptness, Confidentiality, Standards of Objectivity, Acknowledgment of source as well as Disclosure and Conflict of interest.

Reviewers’ recommendation should be either:

  • Accept
  • Requires minor revision
  • Requires major revision
  • Reject

Recommendation should be backed with constructive arguments and facts based on the content of the manuscript.

You can also find basic training for reviewer tasks and step by step guide to reviewing a manuscript in the journal’s website through this link.