Reviewers Roles and Responsibilities

The reviewing process demands a significant investment of time; preparing a review report can be nearly as labor-intensive as composing a manuscript. However, the effort is highly rewarding, benefiting both the reviewer and the broader scientific community.

COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers

The COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers set out the basic principles and standards to which all peer reviewers should adhere during the peer-review process.

Reviewers Should:

  • Ensure robust adherence to scientific standards through active participation in the peer-review system.

  • Safeguard the journal's integrity by identifying and addressing invalid research, thereby contributing to overall publication quality.

  • Fulfill responsibilities toward the scientific community and their specific research domain.

  • Cultivate connections with reputable colleagues and journals, enhancing opportunities to join editorial boards.

  • Help prevent ethical lapses by spotting plagiarism, research fraud, or other ethical concerns using their subject-matter expertise.

  • Demonstrate professional courtesy, recognizing that authors and reviewers exchange reciprocal respect.

Peer Review Process

Policy

Once a manuscript passes initial screening, it is sent for peer review.

Double-Blind Review

The identities of authors and reviewers are not revealed to each other. Typically, the article is sent to 3–4 reviewers.

Getting Started

Before accepting an invitation to review, consider:

  • The manuscript matches your area of expertise.

  • Disclose any potential conflicts of interest to the editor.

  • Ensure you have sufficient time and can meet deadlines.

  • Respond to the invitation within two weeks.

Accessing the Review File

Confidentiality

All materials received for review must be treated as confidential and should not be shared without prior authorization from the editor.

System Access

Reviews are managed via the Arch FBM submission system (OJS – Open Journal System). Use the link provided in the invitation email to access the manuscript and submit your review.

Guidelines for Reviewers

Before writing your review, familiarize yourself with journal-specific guidelines available in the Arch FBM guide for authors. Consider the following points while reviewing:

Originality

  • Does the manuscript offer a valuable and original contribution?

  • Are the research questions well-defined and results a notable advancement?

  • Is the English language clear and understandable?

Significance

  • Are results interpreted appropriately?

  • Are conclusions justified and supported by the results?

Quality of Presentation

  • Is the manuscript clearly written?

  • Are data, graphs, tables, and figures presented appropriately?

  • Do the title and abstract effectively summarize the study?

Scientific Soundness

  • Are conclusions meaningful and engaging for Arch FBM readers?

  • Will the manuscript interest a broad or specialized audience?

General Worth

  • Does publishing this work advance knowledge?

  • Does it address important questions through sound methodology?

Section-wise Evaluation

Introduction

  • Clearly outlines background and rationale.

  • References national, regional, and international literature.

  • Provides a roadmap of the study objectives.

Methods

  • Ethical approval statement.

  • Study design, setting, duration.

  • Data collection methods, sampling, and sample size.

  • Details of apparatus, drugs, chemicals, doses, routes, and statistical methods/software.

  • Patient demographics and statistical methods clearly described.

Results

  • Clearly present findings in text, tables, and figures, avoiding repetition.

Discussion

  • Interpret findings in context of existing knowledge.

  • State whether the hypothesis is validated, refuted, or inconclusive.

  • Discuss strengths and limitations.

Conclusion(s)

  • Summarize key findings without introducing new information.

Article Types Considered

Original Research

  • Innovative approaches to improve healthcare delivery.

  • Policy research and observational analyses covering feasibility, cost-effectiveness, implementation, outcomes, and healthcare reforms.

Review Articles, Case Reports, Short Communications, Mini-Reviews

  • Critical and systematic literature reviews on relevant healthcare delivery topics.

Into Practice (Case Studies)

  • Practical examples of challenges in healthcare delivery, decision-making, and lessons learned.

Visualizations of Data

  • Figures, tables, and images to enhance reader engagement, following robust methodology.

Ethical Considerations

  • All experiments involving humans or animals require ethical approval from the author's host institution.

  • Follow journal-specific ethical guidelines available on the Arch FBM website.

Structuring Your Review

  • Maintain a courteous, constructive tone.

  • Avoid personal remarks or ad hominem comments.

  • Provide clear explanations and support judgments with evidence.

  • Indicate whether comments reflect personal opinion or data-supported conclusions.

Checklist

  • Arch FBM provides a reviewer proforma to structure feedback.

Editor’s Decision

The editor makes the final decision on manuscript acceptance or rejection, considering all reviews. Additional opinions or revisions may be requested.