Guidelines for Reviewers

BSMMUJ is dedicated to publishing high-quality research that meets strong ethical standards and undergoes rigorous peer review. These guidelines, based on COPE and ICMJE recommendations, outline how reviewers can provide fair, constructive, and ethical evaluations.

  1. BSMMUJ follows a single-anonymous peer review system, means reviewers know the authors’ identities, while authors remain unaware of reviewers unless disclosed by reviewer.
  2. To enhance openness and accountability, BSMMUJ implements transparent peer review, where review report made publicly available.
  3. Reviewers are invited via email and respond through the online platform. They ensure submitted studies:
    • Are scientifically valid
    • Meet ethical requirements
    • Follow proper reporting guidelines (e.g., STROBE for observational studies)

The final publication decision is made by the “Editorial Office”, based on reviewers’ recommendations.

  1. Interested experts can join the reviewer pool by sending a CV and their areas of expertise to the Editorial Office (email: journal.executiveeditor@bsmmu.edu.bd).
  2. Review guidelines
    • Disclose any conflicts of interest related to the manuscript.
    • Reviewers should provide unbiased, and constructive feedback aimed at improving the work.
    • If essential elements are missing or inaccurately reported, reviewers should clearly explain what needs to be added or corrected.
    • Unpublished manuscripts must be treated strictly as confidential.
    • Reviewers may not share or disclose manuscript details with others without permission from the editorial team.
    • Reviewers should notify editors if they use AI tools while reviewing and must ensure confidentiality is not compromised.
    • If discussion with a colleague is needed, the colleague must be informed of the confidentiality obligations, their contribution should be acknowledged in the review, they should be encouraged to register as reviewers.
    • If an ethical concern arises (e.g., suspected plagiarism, fabrication, falsification), reviewers may confidentially notify the Editorial Office.
    • We greatly appreciate the time, expertise, and dedication of our reviewers in helping maintain the quality of BSMMUJ.

......................................................................................................................................................................................

 

Review form with instruction

INSTRUCTIONS: Please provide your detailed argument to help editors make a publication decision. Provide comments for the authors to revise, irrespective of your recommendation for rejection or acceptance. To ensure transparency and fairness, we kindly request that you refrain from engaging in direct communication with the authors.

[Please do not: Make comments that are unrelated to the study or manuscript; request new data collection; provide detailed grammatical or formatting corrections (you may provide overall comments on language or formatting); make offensive or disrespectful comments about the authors; or request unnecessary citations, including citations to your own work, unless they are genuinely relevant.]

 

Please provide an overview of the manuscript within 50-60 words. This should be a distilled summary of the work and your overall impression. [The author should not respond to this overview].

Overview: 

 

Please provide concise and constructive comments on the manuscript under Major and Minor Comments. In your review, consider the manuscript’s novelty and originality, contribution to existing knowledge, relevance and appropriateness of the objectives, study design and analytic approaches, methodological rigor, validity of the results, interpretation of findings, and overall scientific significance.

1. Major comments 
[Instruction: should identify substantive issues that may affect the validity, reliability, interpretation, or scientific contribution of the manuscript. These may include, but are not limited to: inappropriate or insufficient study design; major methodological limitations or missing methodological information; inappropriate sampling or substantial concerns about sample size; important ethical concerns; inappropriate or incorrect or insufficient statistical analyses; inadequate control of bias or confounding; results that are unsupported, inconsistent, or inadequately reported; conclusions that are not justified by the findings; substantial problems in interpretation or discussion; lack of sufficient evidence to support the study objectives or main claims; substantial overlap or concerns regarding originality; or other issues that require major revision, additional analysis, clarification, or new evidence to ensure the scientific validity of the manuscript.]

Comments: 

 

2. Minor comments
[Instruction: should highlight issues related to clarity, presentation, language, formatting, or other relatively minor concerns]

Comments: 

 

3. Please comment on the number, quality and appropriateness of tables, figures and images, if any.

[Key points to consider:

  • Number: Are there enough tables, figures, and images to support the study objectives and findings? Are any unnecessary or repeated? Can any tables or figures be combined to make them easier to read?
  • Quality: Are the tables, figures, and images clear and well presented? Are they self-explanatory, with clear titles, labels, units, legends, and footnotes? Are numbers and decimal places presented consistently?
  • Appropriateness: Are the tables, figures, and images relevant to the study objectives and main findings? Are any unnecessary, irrelevant, or repeated items included?]

Comment: 

 

4. Please comment whether the statements or claims made in the manuscript are supported by appropriate and up-to-date [should be within the last 10 years, preferably 5 years] references.
 [Key points to consider:

  • Are the statements and claims in the manuscript supported by appropriate references?
  • Are the references relevant to the statements or claims they support?
  • Are the references up-to-date, preferably published within the last 5 years, and generally within the last 10 years?
  • Are important recent studies or key references missing?
  • Are any references outdated, irrelevant, or used to support claims that they do not adequately support?]

Comment: 

 

5. Did you use any artificial intelligence (AI) tool [e.g., large language models such as ChatGPT, Claude, Bard, or similar technologies] to assist you in preparing your review [including drafting comments, summarizing content, or evaluating the manuscript]? 

If "Yes" please specify the tool(s) used and how they were used.

Comment: 

 

6. Would you like to disclose your identity for this peer review and published in the journal's website? [Note: If you choose to disclose your identity, your name and review comments will be published on the journal’s website and shown with the article and review report.]

  • Yes
  • No

7. Additional comment, if any.
 [Note: Please provide only additional comments or suggestions that have not already been mentioned in the sections above. Avoid repeating the same comments or concerns.]

Comment: 

 

8. Confidential comments to the editor (if any) and provide your ORCID
 [Reviewers may provide confidential feedback to the Editor regarding the manuscript, including any concerns that they do not wish to communicate directly to the authors. These comments will remain confidential and will not be shared with the authors. Please do not repeat comments or concerns already provided in the sections above.]
Comment:

 

Reviewer's Recommendation

  • Accept submission: Select when the manuscript is scientifically sound, clearly presented, and requires no major changes. Only minor editorial or language corrections, if any, may be needed.
  • Revision required: Select when the manuscript is generally suitable for publication but requires minor or moderate revisions that can be addressed without a new round of peer review [Commonly recommended by reviewers].
  • Resubmit for review: Select when the manuscript has important issues that require substantial revision or need to revise the type of the article, but the study has sufficient scientific merit to be reconsidered after the authors make the required changes.
  • Resubmit elsewhere: Select when the manuscript is not suitable for this journal, mainly because it falls outside the journal’s scope or does not meet its publication criteria, but may be suitable for another journal.
  • Decline submission: Select when the manuscript has major scientific, methodological, ethical, or validity concerns that cannot be adequately addressed through revision, or when the study does not provide sufficient scientific contribution for publication.