Skip to main content
Asian Journal of Medical and Biological Research

Asian Journal of Medical and Biological Research

ISSN 2411-4472 (Print) 2412-5571 (Online)
facebook twitter linkedin

Instructions for Reviewers

The editors of the Asian Journal of Medical and Biological Research (AJMBR) greatly value the essential role of reviewers in maintaining the scientific quality, credibility, and integrity of the journal. Peer review is the foundation of scholarly publishing, ensuring that published articles meet accepted standards of originality, methodological rigor, ethical compliance, and academic contribution. By accepting an invitation to review, experts contribute significantly to the advancement of knowledge in medical and biological sciences and support the development of high-quality research worldwide.

Timeliness and Communication

Reviewers are requested to complete their evaluation within three weeks of accepting the review invitation. Timely reviews are critical to ensuring an efficient editorial process and avoiding unnecessary delays for authors. If a reviewer is unable to meet the deadline, requires additional time, or wishes to decline the invitation, prompt communication with the editorial office of the AJMBR at [email protected] or [email protected] so that alternative arrangements can be made. All communications regarding the manuscript should remain confidential and be conducted directly through the journal’s editorial office.

Confidentiality and Ethical Responsibility

Manuscripts under review are confidential documents. Reviewers must not share, discuss, or disclose any part of the manuscript with others without prior permission from the editors. The content of the manuscript should not be used for personal advantage, research development, or professional benefit before publication. If reviewers identify potential ethical concerns, including plagiarism, data fabrication, data falsification, duplicate publication, or unethical research practices, they should immediately inform the editor with detailed and evidence-based comments.

Scope and Relevance

Before conducting a full review, reviewers should confirm that the manuscript aligns with the journal’s stated Aims and Scope. If the topic falls outside their area of expertise or outside the journal’s scope, they should decline the invitation promptly to facilitate reassignment.

Evaluation Criteria

Reviewers are requested to provide a thorough and balanced assessment of the manuscript, considering the following aspects,

  • Ethical Compliance: Confirmation that appropriate ethical approvals, consent procedures, and regulatory standards have been followed.
  • Scientific Soundness: Evaluation of the accuracy, clarity, and reliability of the research design and methodology.
  • Originality and Significance: Assessment of the novelty of the research and its contribution to existing knowledge.
  • Study Design and Methods: Determination of whether the experimental design, sampling methods, controls, and analytical approaches are appropriate and adequately described.
  • Statistical Analysis: Verification that statistical methods are correctly applied and properly interpreted.
  • Data Presentation: Assessment of the clarity and relevance of tables, figures, and supplementary materials.
  • Interpretation and Conclusions: Evaluation of whether the conclusions are logically supported by the presented results.
  • Literature and Citations: Determination of whether references are relevant, current, and appropriately cited.
  • Structure and Clarity: Review of the overall organization, quality of writing, and clarity of English language.
  • Length and Focus: Consideration of whether the manuscript is concise and proportionate to its content.

Constructive and Professional Feedback

Reviewers are encouraged to adopt a fair, objective, and constructive approach. Comments should be specific, clearly written, and numbered to assist both editors and authors during revision. Feedback should aim to improve the scientific quality, clarity, and impact of the manuscript. Personal criticism, inappropriate language, or subjective judgments unrelated to the scientific content should be avoided. When suggesting revisions, reviewers are encouraged to distinguish between major concerns (those affecting validity or interpretation) and minor issues (such as language corrections or formatting improvements).

Conflict of Interest

Reviewers must disclose any potential conflicts of interest that could influence their judgment, including professional collaborations, financial interests, institutional affiliations, or personal relationships with the authors. If a significant conflict exists, the reviewer should decline the invitation.

Recommendation to the Editor

Reviewers are requested to submit their evaluation through the journal’s online review report submission system. The system allows reviewers to provide detailed comments for the authors and confidential remarks for the editor in separate sections. Comments intended for the authors should focus on constructive feedback aimed at improving the scientific quality, clarity, and presentation of the manuscript. These comments should not include explicit statements regarding acceptance or rejection of the paper. Publication recommendations (such as accept, minor revision, major revision, or reject) should be indicated only within the confidential section of the online review system, which is accessible exclusively to the editorial team. The final decision regarding publication rests solely with the Editor-in-Chief or the designated editorial board member, who will consider the reviewers’ reports and overall editorial assessment before reaching a conclusion.