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:
At the end of their review, we ask reviewers to recommend one of the following actions:
Manuscripts under peer review should be strictly confidential. Reviewers must not share manuscripts or discuss their content with anyone outside the peer review process.