Guidelines for Reviewers (Myanmar Health Sciences Research Journal)
Responsibility of the Peer Reviewer
The peer reviewer is responsible for thorough reading and assessing the submitted manuscript in their specialty field, and then providing respectful, constructive, and honest feedback to authors about their submission. The reviewer(s) have to discuss the strengths and weaknesses of the submitted article, providing the ways to improve the strength and quality of the work, and evaluate the relevance and originality of the manuscript. MHSRJ editor will invite a reviewer and the reviewer should reply to accept or reject within 14 days after invitation.
The following points should be considered before accepting to review a manuscript.
1) Does the invited article match your expertise?
If you are invited to review a manuscript for MHSR Journal and the article does not sufficiently match your area of expertise, please contact the editor as soon as possible. Please feel free to recommend alternate reviewer.
2) Do you have enough time to review the manuscript?
Finished reviews of an article should be completed and submitted the reviewer's comments within 21 days. If you do not think you can complete the review within this time frame, please let the editor know and if possible, suggest an alternate reviewer. If you have agreed to review a manuscript but will no longer be able to finish before the deadline, please notify the editor as soon as possible.
3) Are there any potential conflicts of interests?
It is important to disclose all potential conflicts of interest to the editors before reviewing. If you have any questions about potential conflicts of interests for the manuscript to review, please contact editorial office.
For reviewing, the following points should be considered;
Content Quality and Originality,
Is the article sufficiently novel and interesting enough for publication? Does the article adhere to the journal's standards and aims? Is the research question an important one in contribution of science?
Organization and Clarity of the content
Title: Does it clearly describe the content of the article?
Abstract: Does it reflect the content of the article?
Introduction: Does it describe what the author hoped to achieve accurately, and clearly state the problem being investigated? Normally, the introduction should summarize relevant research to provide context, and explain what other authors' findings, if any, are being challenged or extended. It should describe the experiment, the hypothesis(es) and the general experimental design or method.
Method: Does the author accurately explain how the data was collected? Is the research methodology and study design suitable for answering the question posed? Is there sufficient information present for you to replicate the research? Does the article identify the procedures that had been documented previously? Are these ordered in a meaningful way? If the methods are new, are they explained in detail? Were the sampling and sample size appropriate? Is there sufficient statistical analysis? Have the equipment and materials been adequately described? Does the article make it clear what type of data was recorded and processed; has the author been precise in describing measurements using adequate standard control?
Results: This is where the author/s should explain in words what he/she discovered in the research. It should be clearly laid out and in a logical sequence. The manuscript must be presented with the appropriate analysis using suitable statistics. If you are not comfortable with statistics used in the submitted manuscript, please advise the editor when you submit your report. Interpretation of results should not be included in this section.
Conclusion/Discussion: Are the claims in this section supported by the results, do they seem reasonable? Have the authors indicated how the results relate to expectations and to earlier research? Does the article support or contradict previous theories? Does the conclusion explain how the research has moved the body of scientific knowledge forward?
Tables, Figures, Images: Are they appropriate? Do they properly show the data? Are they easy to interpret and understand? Scope - Is the article in line with the aims and scope of the journal?
All submissions to the MHSRJ are confidential and the reviewers should not discuss any aspect of the submissions with a third party or other colleges without prior permission of the MHSRJ editor. Furthermore, without specific reason and without contact with editor, the reviewer must not contact the author directly.
If the reviewer suspect the submitted manuscript is a substantial copy of another work, please report to the editor in details and the editors will investigate it. If the reviewer suspect there has been a violation of the accepted norms in the ethical treatment of animal or human subjects, these should also be identified to the editor.
Reviewer's recommendation on submitted article will be considered when the editors make the final decision, and your thorough, and academic honest feedback will be much appreciated.
Please do not hesitate to contact the editorial office with any questions or concerns you may have.
The following recommendations are possible after thorough review on submitted manuscript;
- Accept – if the manuscript is appropriate for publication in its current form.
- Minor revision – if the paper will be ready for publication after few revisions. Please list the revisions you would recommend the author makes.
- Major revision – if the paper would benefit from substantial changes such as expanded data analysis, more literature review, more experiments, or rewriting sections of the text.
- Reject – if the paper is not appropriate for publication with this journal.