Instructions to Reviewers

Reviewers help the editor assess validity, relevance, clarity and ethical reporting. Reviews should be specific, fair and constructive, with sufficient reasoning to support their recommendations.

Before accepting

Check your expertise, availability and competing interests. Respond to the invitation promptly; the normal response window is two weeks and the review window is four weeks. If you need an extension, contact the handling editor. Decline when you cannot provide an independent assessment.

What to assess

• Importance and clarity of the research question and suitability for JMHMR.
• Study design, sampling, controls, bias, outcome measures and ethical safeguards.
• Statistical analysis, uncertainty, missing data and consistency between results and conclusions.
• Reporting completeness, reproducibility, relevant literature and transparency of limitations.
• Consent, approval, registration, funding, competing interests and data availability where applicable.

Writing the report

Start with a short summary, then distinguish major issues affecting validity from minor improvements. Refer to page or section locations. Explain requests and avoid requiring unnecessary experiments or citations. Do not ask authors to cite your work or the journal merely to increase citation counts. Keep comments professional.

Confidentiality and integrity

Do not share the manuscript, contact authors directly or use unpublished information. Do not involve another person without the editor’s permission. Never upload confidential manuscript content to public AI services. Report suspected problems privately to the editor, with evidence, without independently accusing the authors.

Recommendation

Submit comments for authors and any confidential comments for the editor through OJS. Recommend acceptance, revision or rejection with reasons. The editor makes the decision and may invite you to assess a revision.

Policy enquiries: editor@jmhmr.com · Updated 1 October 2026.