For Reviewers

  1. Models of Peer review at Jaypee Journals
  2. Ethical principles during the peer review process for reviewers
  3. Ownership of the review
  4. Conducting a review
  5. Become a reviewer with Jaypee Journals

Peer review guarantees the highest quality standards for published papers and is a crucial step in the publication process. All submissions to our journals are subjected to rigorous peer review by experts. We request that all reviewers adhere to a set of fundamental principles and standards during the peer-review process for research publications; these are set out below. Please read them carefully before you submit a review. These conditions are based on the COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers (, which provides further information on how to be objective and constructive in your review.

  1. Models of Peer review at Jaypee Journals

    1. Single-blind peer review
      During the peer review process, the reviewer will know the authors' names, but the reviewer's name will not be shared. The review will appear in the editorial decision letter, where it can be read by the authors and other reviewers.

    2. Double-blind peer review
      Double-blind peer review means the identities of both the author and the reviewer are concealed from each other.

    3. Triple-blind peer review
      In this peer review process, author identities and affiliations are not revealed to editors or reviewers. This peer review is organised by the managing editor or publisher.

  2. Ethical principles during the peer review process for reviewers

    1. Competing interest

      The reviewer must disclose any competing or conflicting interests. If uncertain about a possible conflict of interest that could prevent the reviewer from evaluating, this should be brought to the attention of the journal editor. The reviewer must avoid reading the manuscript and related materials while waiting for a response in case the request to review is withdrawn.

      The reviewer should not accept the assignment if they are currently employed at the same institution as any of the authors or have been recent (within the previous three years) mentors, mentees, close collaborators, or joint grant holders. In addition, the reviewer should not agree to evaluate a manuscript if they have no intention of submitting a review.

      If the reviewer does not have the expertise to evaluate the article, please contact the journal as soon as possible to avoid excessively delaying the review procedure. If the reviewer can identify the author(s) in a double-anonymous review, the journal should be informed as to whether this could lead to a competing interest or conflict of interest.

    2. Disclose Limitations

      The reviewer should not agree to review a manuscript that is substantially similar to one they are currently preparing or considering for another journal. Personal, financial, intellectual, professional, political, and religious concerns are all examples of different types of competing interests that can arise.

    3. Confidentiality

      Reviewers have a responsibility to protect the privacy of the authors by not disclosing any details from submitted manuscripts. If professional colleagues are consulted regarding the manuscript or its review, the reviewer must understand the importance of maintaining confidentiality until the article is published. When submitting the review, the reviewer must disclose whether they worked with anybody else on it and whether they have any conflicts of interest. After reviewing a manuscript, the reviewer is not allowed to keep a copy for future reference and must dispose all the copies.

    4. Timeliness

      The reviewer must accept to review the manuscript only if they are confident they can complete the task and submit the feedback within the specified (or agreed-upon) time frame. If a reviewer is unable to review the manuscript, alternate reviewers can be suggested based on their expertise without any personal bias or any intention of the manuscript receiving a specific outcome.

    5. Scientific misconduct

      The journal editor should be notified if the reviewer finds significant similarities between the submitted work and any other manuscripts now under review at other journals or any published articles to which the author may have contributed. It is appropriate to cooperate, in confidence, with the journal but not to personally investigate further unless the journal asks for additional information or advice.

    6. Providing feedback

      The reviewer must give a fair, honest, and objective evaluation of the manuscript's advantages and disadvantages. The reviewer must be precise in their criticism, and any generalisations must be backed up with relevant references and supporting data. The reviewer must be professional, avoid being aggressive or inflammatory, and avoid making libellous or disparaging remarks about the authors and their work. The reviewer should comment and explain what further analyses might clarify the submitted work if it is not exact due to missing analyses. The reviewer must not add to or extend the work beyond its scope. If the reviewer is not comfortable with statistics, please inform the editor when you submit your report.

  3. Ownership of the review

    The reviewer is the owner of the review that is submitted. The reviewer must obtain consent from co-reviewers or any third party who may have contributed to the review.

  4. Conducting a review

    Reviewers should ensure that the articles are scientifically credible, reported according to the appropriate guidelines (e.g., CONSORT, STARD, STROBE), and ethical.
    1. Invitation to review: Manuscripts submitted to Jaypee Journals are reviewed by at least two independent peer reviewers. The reviewers are chosen by the journal's editorial board members.
      1. Depending on the title and abstract of the paper, reviewer invitations should be accepted or denied as soon as feasible.
      2. If an invitation must be declined, reviewers should be suggested as alternatives.
      3. If a deadline extension is needed, it should be requested as soon as possible.

    2. Declare any potential conflict of interest : Reviewers are required to disclose any potential conflicts of interest and consult the journal's editorial office if they are unsure if a situation falls under this category.
      Possible conflicts of interest include, but are not limited to:
      1. The reviewer works at the same institute as one of the authors; the reviewer has a personal relationship with, competes with, or dislikes any of the authors.
      2. The reviewer is a co-author, collaborator, joint grant holder, or has any other academic connection with any of the writers within the last three years.
      3. The reviewer has a conflict of interest with any of the authors, whether financial or otherwise (including political, personal, religious, ideological, academic, intellectual, commercial, or any other).
      4. The reviewer may gain or lose financially in any way from the publication of the work.
      5. Reviewers must disclose any potential conflicts of interest that could be interpreted as bias for or against the manuscript or its authors.

      It is not considered a conflict of interest if reviewers are asked to evaluate an article they have already evaluated for another journal. In this instance, reviewers can inform the editorial office whether the revised article is an improvement over the previous version.

    3. Reviewer report
      These are some general instructions regarding the review report.
      1. The reviewer must familiarise themselves with the journal's “Author Instructions” and the “Policy”.
      2. Read the entire manuscript as well as any supplementary material, paying special attention to the figures, tables, statistics, and methodologies.
      3. The reviewers must ensure that their comments are detailed so that the authors may correctly understand and address the points raised.
      4. The reviewer must critically analyse the article for its scientific credibility. The Equator reporting guidelines ( should be referred to ensure all the relevant information is mentioned in the article.
      5. Reviewers shouldn't suggest citing their own work, the work of close colleagues, the work of another author, or the work of the journal itself if it is not clear that doing so will improve the quality of the manuscript being reviewed.
      6. Reviewers shall not advocate excessive citations of their own work (self-citations), another author's work (honorary citations), or articles from the journal where the submitted manuscript was published in order to increase the number of citations for the reviewer/authors/journal. You may provide references as needed, but they must significantly enhance the quality of the submitted work.
      7. Reviewers should keep the tone impartial and concentrate on providing helpful comments that will help the authors improve their work. Derogatory remarks will not be tolerated.
      8. The reviewer must not identify themselves or their institution in the comments for the authors. Letterhead should not be used. Do not say, “In my work (Doe, 2010), ..” or “Here, at the University of X, we…”
      9. Do not include overall recommendations in your comments to the authors (For example, “This paper is publishable,” “This paper is unacceptable,” “This paper should not be published,” etc.). General recommendations should be included in comments sent to the editor separately.

    General questions to help guide the review report:

    1. Title: The title should convey the importance of the study and clearly describe the article. The title should be non-declarative and not be in a question form. The study design should be included in the title.
    2. Abstract: The abstract must accurately reflect the content of the article, be comprehensive, and include all pertinent information. The main article and abstract cannot contain any details that are inconsistent with one another. The results should be adequately and precisely described in the abstract. The content in both the abstract and the text must support the conclusions in the abstract.
    3. Figures, patient images, graphs, and tables: Please check the specifications for “Figures and Tables” from the “Author Instructions” before reviewing them. Are the figures, tables, and images right? Do they represent the data in the right way? Are they clear and easy to understand? Is there consistency, such as the use of the same width bars in charts and reasonable axis scaling? Verify that any images of people, faces, or patients have been clearly anonymized and have had any sensitive information removed.
    4. References: Please check the requirements for References in “Author Instructions”. Reviewers are expected to verify that the references in the papers are used correctly. Are the cited references reliable?

For research articles

For review articles

For case reports

  1. Is the manuscript easy to understand, relevant to the field, and well organised?
  2. Are most of the cited sources from within the last 5 years and still relevant? Are self-citations used as references too often?
  3. Does the manuscript make sense from a scientific point of view, and does the design of the experiment make sense to test the hypothesis?
  4. Are the results of the manuscript reproducible based on the information in the "Methods" section?
  5. Is the way the data are interpreted right and consistent throughout the whole manuscript?
  6. Is the statistical analysis right, and is more information about the statistical analysis required?
  7. Are the conclusions in line with the results?
  8. Please look over the statements on ethics and data availability to make sure they are adequate.
  9. Does the article fulfil all the requirements of the respective reporting guidelines?
  1. Is the review easy to understand, complete, and important to the field? Does it address a knowledge gap in the field?
  2. Was a similar review published, and if so, is this review still important and interesting to the scientific community?
  3. Are most of the cited sources from within the last 5 years and still relevant? Are any important references missing? Does it use self-citation as a reference?
  4. Are the points and conclusions made clear and supported by the citations listed?
  5. Are the figures, tables, pictures, and data rightly represented? Do they show the data in the right way?
  6. Does the article fulfil all the requirements of the respective reporting guidelines?
  7. Please look over the statements on ethics and consent if patient images are used.
  1. Does the case report emphasise the need for publication based on the novelty of the case or the specific adverse event?
  2. Are appropriate details of the case, including demography, assessment, findings, investigations, diagnosis, treatment, and outcomes mentioned?
  3. Are the interventions mentioned in detail?
  4. Does the discussion mention the pertinent literature and limitations of the case report?
  5. Please ensure that patient consent is mentioned in the case reports.
  6. Does the article fulfil all the requirements of the CARE reporting guidelines?

The “Reviewer Report” must encompass all the above aspects and provide comprehensive as well as specific comments on how the manuscript can be improved. These comments will be taken into consideration by the editor for the final decision on the manuscript.

  1. Rating the manuscript
    During the review, the reviewers will be asked to rate the manuscript on the following parameters:
    1. Novelty: Is the query specific and original? Do the outcomes contribute to the advancement of knowledge?
    2. Scope: Does the manuscript align with the journal's scope?
    3. Significance: Is the conclusion justified by the results? Are the conclusions overstated?
    4. Study design and statistics: Is the study design adequate? Is the rationale of the study design properly addressed? Are the statistical methods described appropriate to the study design? Is the sample size estimation described?
    5. Scientific soundness: Is the study technically sound and properly designed? Do the analyses follow the strictest technical guidelines? Is the data reliable enough to draw conclusions? Are the procedures, instruments, software, and materials adequately explained to permit another researcher to duplicate the findings? If relevant, is the raw data available and accurate?
    6. English language: Is the English language readable and understandable?
    7. Reader's interest: Is the article interesting for the readers of the journal?

  2. Reporting ethical misconduct
    If the reviewers become aware of any scientific misconduct or fraud, plagiarism, or any other unethical behaviour connected to the article, they should bring it to the attention of the editor.

  3. Overall recommendation

    The reviewers can recommend “accept,” “accept after minor revisions,” “Revise,” and “Reject”. This recommendation will be visible only to the journal editor. Your recommendation should be well justified.
    1. Accept - The manuscript can be accepted without any further changes.
    2. Accept after minor revisions - The manuscript can be accepted after the revision based on the reviewer's comments; however, this does not guarantee acceptance.
    3. Revise - The manuscript requires major revisions. The revised manuscript will be sent for further review.
    4. Reject - The manuscript is not considered for further review or publication.
  1. Become a reviewer with Jaypee Journals

    Articles published by Jaypee Journals follow a single-, double-, or triple-blind peer review process. We encourage authors who have benefited from the peer review process to consider becoming peer reviewers as a part of their professional responsibilities.

    We have a 2000+ pool of reviewers from various specialties across the globe that help our editors publish the best works in Jaypee Journals. We are constantly looking to expand our reviewer pool. So, if you are new to peer review, do not hesitate to join Jaypee Journals. What we require from a reviewer are:
    • Qualifications (Masters/PhD depending on subject area).
    • Experience as a peer reviewer if any.
    • The number of papers published in their given area of expertise.
    • Citations and bibliometric data for the published paper.
    • Recommendations from other researchers/reviewers they know or have worked with.
    • Commitment to provide constructive criticism to the authors and editors, timeliness in providing the review, and good communication skills.

    Benefits of being a reviewer with Jaypee Journals

    1. Keeping up with research, learning new and best practises and enhancing your writing and critique skills.
    2. The reviewers receive a personalised reviewer certificate upon request.
    3. The reviewers are included in the journal's annual acknowledgement of reviewers (for selected journals).
    4. Excellent reviewers may be promoted to Editorial Board Members (for selected journals, subject to approval by the editor-in-chief).
    5. Reviewers can create a Publons profile and have their reviewing activities added to participating journals instantly. Profiles at Publons can also be linked to ORCID.

Before beginning, visit COPE guidelines for peer reviewers:

Join our reviewer pool by visiting the journal's home page and choosing “Join as Reviewer”. Choose your specialty journal at

For further information or assistance, contact:

Sign Up For Newsletter