Reviewer Guideline

When considering an invitation to review, please ask yourself the following questions:

  1. Is the article within your area of expertise? Only accept if you feel qualified to provide a high-quality review.
  2. Do you have a potential conflict of interest? If so, please disclose this to the editor when you respond.
  3. Do you have sufficient time to complete the review before the deadline? Reviewing can be time-consuming, so make sure you can commit to the deadline.

How to Conduct a Peer Review for IMJ

Your reviewer report should provide a comprehensive critique of the submission and should consist of more than just a few brief sentences. IMJ does not require a specific structure for reports, but we suggest the following format:

  • Summary
  • Major issues
  • Minor issues

We encourage reviewers to provide constructive feedback to help authors improve their manuscripts. If there are any comments that you do not wish the authors to see, please include them in the confidential comments to the editor-in-chief. Although expectations may differ by discipline, reviewers should critique the following core aspects:

  • Are the research questions valid?
  • Is the sample size sufficient?
  • Was necessary ethical approval and/or consent obtained and was the research ethical?
  • Are the methods and study design appropriate for answering the research question?
  • Do the experiments have appropriate controls?
  • Is the reporting of the methods, including any equipment and materials, detailed enough for the research to be reproduced?
  • Are any statistical tests used appropriately and correctly reported?
  • Are the figures and tables clear and do they accurately represent the results?
  • Have previous research by the authors and others been discussed, and have those results been compared to the current results?
  • Do the results support the conclusions?
  • Are there any inappropriate citations?
  • Are limitations of the research acknowledged?
  • Is the abstract an accurate summary of the research and results, without bias?
  • Is the language clear and understandable?

To ensure that authors receive timely reviews, please submit your reviewer report via the manuscript tracking system on or before the agreed deadline. If you are unable to meet the deadline, please contact IMJ so that an alternative date can be arranged.

We ask reviewers to focus on objectively critiquing the scientific aspects of the submission, including the soundness of the methodology and whether the conclusions can be supported by the results. You may also provide comments on novelty and the potential impact of the work. At the end of your review, we request that you recommend one of the following actions:

  • Accepted
  • Minor Revision
  • Major Revision
  • Reject
  • Unable to Review

Confidentiality

Manuscripts under peer review are strictly confidential. Reviewers are prohibited from sharing manuscripts or discussing their content with anyone outside of the peer-review process.

On request, reviewers may consult with colleagues from their research group, provided that the manuscript's confidentiality is maintained. Before doing so, please contact IMJ or the Editor in Chief and note the name(s) of the colleague(s) in the 'Comments to the editor' section of your report.

Conflicts of Interest

Reviewers should decline to review a submission if:

  • They have a financial interest in the subject of the work.
  • They have previously discussed the manuscript with the authors.
  • They feel unable to be objective.

Applying to Review

We appreciate applications to join our community of peer reviewers. Our Editorial Board selects reviewers on a manuscript-by-manuscript basis, inviting the most appropriate scientists from their own specialty and/or publication list. To ensure that we have your up-to-date contact details, interested reviewers should register for a user account.