Reviewer Guidelines

The Jazer Journal of Translational Health Science (JJTHS) follows a double-blind peer review process to ensure fairness, objectivity, and scientific rigor. The journal highly values the expertise and contributions of its reviewers in maintaining the quality and credibility of published research. These guidelines are intended to support reviewers in providing thorough, balanced, and constructive evaluations.

Confidentiality and Ethical Conduct

JJTHS operates a double-blind review system in which the identities of both authors and reviewers remain confidential. Manuscripts under review are confidential documents and must not be shared, discussed, or used for personal or professional advantage.

Reviewers should immediately inform the editorial office and decline the review if they identify a potential conflict of interest or recognize the authorship of the manuscript.

Scope of Review

Reviewers are expected to provide an objective, evidence-based assessment of the manuscript, considering the following aspects:

  • Originality and novelty: Does the study offer new insights or meaningful contributions?
  • Scientific validity: Are the study design, methodology, analysis, and interpretation appropriate and robust?
  • Relevance and impact: Does the work contribute to translational health science or related disciplines?
  • Clarity and organization: Is the manuscript well-structured, coherent, and clearly presented?
  • Ethical compliance: Are ethical approvals and informed consent appropriately addressed where applicable?
  • References: Are sources relevant, current, and properly cited?

Structure of the Review Report

Reviewers are encouraged to organize their feedback as follows:

1. General Comments

  • Brief summary of the manuscript
  • Overall assessment, including key strengths and limitations
  • Suitability for the journal

2. Detailed Evaluation

  • Title and Abstract: Accuracy and clarity
  • Introduction: Background and rationale
  • Methods: Adequacy, reproducibility, and ethical considerations
  • Results: Clarity and presentation of data
  • Discussion: Interpretation and contextual relevance
  • Conclusion: Alignment with findings
  • Language and presentation: Clarity and readability
  • References: Relevance and completeness

3. Confidential Comments to the Editor (Optional)

  • Concerns regarding ethics, originality, or potential misconduct

4. Recommendation

  • Accept
  • Minor revision
  • Major revision
  • Reject

Tone and Professional Conduct

Reviews should be constructive, respectful, and objective. Feedback should focus on improving the manuscript and should avoid personal or dismissive language. Where possible, reviewers are encouraged to provide specific suggestions for improvement.

Timeliness

Reviewers are expected to submit their reports within the assigned timeframe. If additional time is required, or if the reviewer is unable to complete the review, the editorial office should be informed promptly.

Conflict of Interest

Reviewers should decline to review manuscripts where a conflict of interest exists, including:

  • Personal or professional relationships with the authors
  • Affiliation with the same institution
  • Recent collaboration (within the past three years)
  • Financial or competitive interests related to the manuscript

Recognition of Reviewers

The journal acknowledges the valuable contributions of its reviewers. Outstanding reviewers may be recognized periodically and considered for editorial roles based on their contributions and expertise.

Contact

For any queries or clarifications, reviewers are encouraged to contact the editorial office or the Editor-in-Chief.