Guidelines for Peer Reviewers

Peer reviewers are essential to the scientific integrity and quality control of ClinMed Nexus: Journal of Clinical and Medical Research (CMN-CMR). By offering unbiased and constructive evaluations, reviewers help authors improve their manuscripts and assist editors in making informed decisions.

1. Purpose of Peer Review

The peer review process is designed to ensure the accuracy, clarity, originality, and significance of submitted research. Reviewers act as critical evaluators and advisors, not gatekeepers. Their feedback must be thorough, fair, and respectful.

2. Reviewer Responsibilities

  • Evaluate Objectively: Assess the manuscript’s scientific merit, relevance to the journal’s scope, methodological rigor, clarity, and ethical compliance.
  • Maintain Confidentiality: Do not share, discuss, or use the contents of the manuscript outside the review process.
  • Declare Conflicts of Interest: If any personal, financial, or professional conflict exists, inform the editor and decline the review.
  • Provide Constructive Feedback: Offer clear, evidence-based comments to help authors strengthen their work. Avoid personal remarks or unsubstantiated criticism.
  • Respect Deadlines: Complete reviews within the requested timeframe. If more time is needed, notify the editorial office promptly.

3. What to Include in a Review

Reviewers should focus on the following aspects:

  • Originality: Does the manuscript present new findings or perspectives?
  • Scientific Rigor: Are the study design, data collection, and analysis appropriate and sound?
  • Ethical Standards: Are all ethical guidelines followed, including informed consent and ethical board approvals?
  • Clarity: Is the manuscript well-organized and clearly written?
  • Relevance: Does the study align with the journal’s aims and readership?

4. Recommendation Options

Based on the evaluation, reviewers will be asked to recommend one of the following:

  • Accept – The manuscript is ready for publication with minimal or no changes.
  • Minor Revision – Small revisions are needed before acceptance.
  • Major Revision – Significant improvements are necessary before reconsideration.
  • Reject – The manuscript is not suitable for publication in its current form.

5. Ethical Considerations

Reviewers are expected to report:

  • Suspected plagiarism or data fabrication
  • Redundant or duplicate publication
  • Ethical breaches in human or animal research

Concerns should be communicated confidentially to the editor via the reviewer form or email.

6. Recognition and Confidentiality

CMN-CMR values reviewer contributions and may offer recognition through certificates or public acknowledgment (with consent). However, all reviews remain anonymous unless both the reviewer and author agree otherwise.

By participating in the peer review process, reviewers contribute to maintaining the high standards of CMN-CMR and the broader medical research community. We appreciate your commitment and professionalism.