Reviewers Guideline

Reviewers Guideline

Reviews should be professional, honest, courteous, prompt, and constructive. The reviewers should help authors improve their manuscript. The report should give constructive analysis to authors, particularly where revisions are recommended. Where reviewers do not wish authors to see certain comments, these can be added to the confidential comments to the editor in chief. The reviewers should provide DJM with a high-quality review as follows:

-The reviewer should have identified and commented on major strengths and   weaknesses of study design and methodology

-The reviewer should comment accurately and constructively upon the quality of the author's interpretation of the data, including acknowledgment of its limitations.

-The reviewer should comment on major strengths and weaknesses of the manuscript as a written communication, independent of the design, methodology, results, and interpretation of the study.

-The reviewer should comment on any ethical concerns raised by the study, or any possible evidence of low standards of scientific conduct.

-The reviewer should provide the author with useful suggestions for improvement of the manuscript.

-The reviewer's comments to the author should be constructive and professional.

-The review should provide the editor of Diyala journal of Medicine the proper context, perspective, recommendation to make a decision on acceptance (and/or revision) of the manuscript.


The Reviewers of DJM should answer the following questions:

  • Is the research study question valid?
  • Is the research study have ethical approval and/or consent and was the research ethical?
  • Are the animal experiments have full compliance with local, national, ethical, and regulatory principles, and local licensing arrangements?
  • Are the methods and study design answering the research question?
  • Are the statistical analysis of the data correctly reported?
  • Are the figures and tables of the results clear and understandable?
  • Has previous research of the authors been discussed and have those results been compared to the current results?
  • Are there any inappropriate citations, for example, not supporting the claim being made or too many citations to the authors'''' own articles?
  • Is the language clear and understandable? 

At the end of their review, we ask reviewers to recommend one of the following actions: 

  • Accepted
  • Accepted with minor changes
  • Accepted with major changes
  • Unaccepted
  • Unable to Review 



Manuscripts under peer review should be strictly confidential. Reviewers must not share manuscripts or discuss their content with anyone outside the peer review process.