PEER REVIEW POLICY

 

Khyber Medical University Journal (KMUJ) is a PEER REVIEWED journal following DOUBLE BLIND PEER REVIEW system. KMUJ has a panel of peer-reviewers with diversity in knowledge, viewpoint and expertise in relevant specialties.


Selection of reviewers

  • Reviewers are selected based on their subject expertise, demonstrated through relevant academic qualifications, professional experience, and/or a track record of publications in the field. Preference is given to reviewers with recent research or clinical activity related to the manuscript’s topic. Reviewers must have no conflicts of interest with the authors, institutions, or funding sources. The journal aims to maintain a diverse and up-to-date reviewer database to ensure quality and impartial peer review.

 

Responsibilities of reviewers

  1. Reviewers are required to assess the manuscript using the reviewer’s proforma provided with the submission. Reviewers may provide a detailed narrative review, addressing all relevant aspects of the manuscript, without using the proforma. The evaluation should include:
    • Assessments of the originality and importance of the research
    • The design of the study
    • The methods of study, including analytical and statistical approaches. A statistical review may be initiated by the editors if recommended by the reviewers or deemed necessary by the editorial team
    • The presentation of the results
    • Important findings of results discussed with new emerging findings
    • Possible confoundings
    • The strength of the conclusions
    • The overall quality of the manuscript.
  2. Reviewers are required to provide recommendations to the editor regarding the suitability of a manuscript for publication. In addition, they may be asked to submit narrative comments supporting their recommendation (acceptance, revision, or rejection) and to evaluate specific aspects such as originality, quality, accuracy, readability, and reader interest. Reviewers may also be asked to complete structured questionnaires or assign a priority score to the manuscript.
  3. Reviewers should declare to the editor any potential conflicts of interest with respect to the authors or the content of a manuscript they are asked to review, and in most instances when such conflicts exist should decline to review the manuscript.
  4. Other responsibilities of reviewers include treating the manuscript as a confidential document and completing the review promptly. Reviewers should not show the manuscript to anyone else without the express consent of the editor.
  5. Reviewers should not make derogatory comments about the manuscript in their comments for the authors. If reviewers do make such comments, the editor may choose to edit the comments or even withhold all the reviewer’s comments from the authors.
  6. Reviewers must not disclose their identity or communicate directly with the authors at any stage of the review process.
  7. Reviewers should meet the agreed-upon deadline (usually 4 weeks) for manuscript review and should respond to the reminders if sent any.

 

Identification and evaluation of reviewers

  1. The editor will establish a reviewer database that includes information about the expertise of each reviewer as well as addresses and other contact information.
  2. The editor may identify potential reviewers on the basis of personal knowledge of the topic, the membership of the professional societies, colleagues at affiliated institutions, or computer searches of databases such as PubMed, Medline, etc. or by asking for names from reviewers who decline to review the manuscript.
  3. Only those reviewers who consent to be on review panel will be added to the KMUJ online review and tracking system.
  4. Authors may suggest potential reviewers for their manuscript, whether they are invited to do so by the editor. While the editor may consider these suggestions, there is no obligation to use the recommended reviewers. This approach helps expand the reviewer database while ensuring that manuscripts are not necessarily reviewed by author-suggested individuals, thereby maintaining the integrity of the double-blind peer review process. Authors may also request that certain individuals not be invited to review their manuscript, and the editor will consider such requests on a case-by-case basis.
  5. Review requests will be sent to potential reviewers through the Online Journal System, along with the relevant documents required for assessment.
  6. The editor is responsible for keeping track of reviewers, and taking steps to make sure reviews are completed in a timely manner. Each peer review is rated by the editor assigned to the manuscript and stored with the reviewer’s profile in the Rapid Review reviewer database. This rating becomes part of the reviewing history of each peer reviewer, and can be viewed by the editors as they select potential reviewers for future manuscripts. The reviewer database also contains information on the reviewers’ areas of expertise; the number of previous invitations to review and number accepted; dates of submitted reviews, and days taken to produce reviews. Reviewers who consistently decline invitations or who write brief unhelpful reviews are eventually removed from the database.
  7. To avoid overworking reviewers, each reviewer will be asked to evaluate no more than one manuscript per month. Reviewers have the right to decline the review due to any reason.


Note: Due to blind peer review policy, review details are not shared publicly, however can be shared to International Indexing agencies, Higher Education Commission Pakistan & Pakistan Medical & Dental Council on demand or during journal evaluation process, as the case may be.

 

Use of AI Tools by Reviewers

  • Reviewers must not upload any part of the manuscript to publicly accessible AI tools (e.g., ChatGPT, Bard, and Copilot) or other platforms that store, reuse, or share content to maintain confidentiality.
  • AI-assisted tools may only be used for minor grammar or language refinement of the reviewer’s own comments, and must never be used to generate review content, interpret data, or analyze the manuscript.
  • Reviewers remain solely responsible for the accuracy, integrity, and confidentiality of their review.

 

Rewarding reviewers 

  • “Thank you” email will be sent immediately on completion of the review to each reviewer through online review system.
  • Review-credit certificate, duly signed by the editor will be sent through email to the reviewer on demand.
  • Reviewer may claim the credit of review, after getting registered as reviewer on:

REVIEWER CREDIT


Decision making and communication to authors

  • The editor will make the final decision on a manuscript (acceptance, revision, or rejection) after considering the reviewers’ comments, personal assessment, and other relevant factors.
  • Factors influencing the editorial decision may include reviewer comments and recommendations, space availability, and, most importantly, the editor’s judgment regarding the manuscript’s suitability for the journal, as well as its value and relevance to the journal’s readership.
  • The editor may seek additional review and advice if required.
  • The editor will communicate the final decision to the authors, providing an explanation, when necessary that is independent of the reviewers’ comments shared with the authors.
  • Decisions to reject a manuscript may be based on factors such as scientific weaknesses (e.g., poor research design, inappropriate methodology), lack of originality, limited relevance or interest to readers. The editor will clearly explain the reasons for rejection to the authors, especially in cases where the decision contrasts with the generally favorable tone of the reviewers’ comments that will be shared with the authors.
  • If reviewer comments are contradictory, the editor will determine which recommendations the authors should follow and will communicate this clearly. Editors may also provide their own comments and suggestions for revision. The editor may seek additional review and advice if required. The editor, or a designated member of the editorial office, is responsible for ensuring that revised manuscripts comply with the journal’s standards.

 

Editorial decision appeals

  • Authors have the right to appeal editorial decisions, including manuscript rejection, if they believe the decision was based on an error in the review process or a misunderstanding of the work. Appeals must be submitted in writing to the Editor-in-Chief within 30 days of receiving the decision letter. The appeal should clearly state the reasons for contesting the decision and provide any supporting evidence or clarifications.
  • The appeal will be reviewed by the Editor-in-Chief in consultation with at least one senior editorial board member who was not involved in the original decision. If necessary, an additional independent reviewer may be invited. The final decision on the appeal will be communicated to the authors within 6–8 weeks.
  • Decisions made after the appeal process are final.

 

Managing submissions from the sponsoring institution and editorial board members

  • Manuscripts submitted by authors from the journal’s sponsoring institution, or from members of the editorial board, will be assigned to an editorial board member with no direct conflict of interest (not from the same department or research group as the submitting author).
  • Such manuscripts will undergo the same rigorous peer review process as all other submissions and will be reviewed by at least two independent peer reviewers from outside the sponsoring institution.
  • The editorial decision will be based solely on the quality, originality, and relevance of the work, ensuring objectivity and impartiality.