Reviewer Guidelines

Guidelines for Reviewers

Introduction

The quality of articles published in a journal largely depends on the quality of the reviewers and the robustness of the peer-review process. Reviewers’ suggestions, corrections, and recommendations play a vital role in improving the scientific merit and presentation of manuscripts.
The Unique Pub International  Journals follows a blind peer review system.

Before accepting a review assignment, reviewers are requested to ensure that:

  • The manuscript falls within their area of expertise.

  • They can devote adequate time to conduct an objective, critical, and timely review.

Confidentiality

Reviewers must maintain strict confidentiality regarding manuscript content, reviewer comments, and all communications with the editorial office. Manuscripts and related correspondence must not be shared with any unauthorised person, organisation, forum, or website.

Plagiarism and Ethical Conduct

Plagiarism is defined as the use of another person’s work or ideas without proper acknowledgement. Reviewers must not use any information obtained during the review process for personal benefit or share it with others. Any such action will be considered unethical and equivalent to plagiarism.

Objectivity

Reviews must be conducted with honesty, fairness, and objectivity. Although IJLPR follows blind peer review and takes all measures to mask author identity, reviewers should not allow themselves to be influenced by:

  • Nationality, gender, race, or ethnicity of the author(s)

  • Religious, cultural, or political beliefs

Conflict of Interest

Reviewers must declare any potential conflict of interest that may affect their impartiality. If such a conflict exists, the reviewer should withdraw from the review process and inform the editorial office promptly.

Detailed screening guidelines are provided to reviewers during the review process. These guidelines are confidential and intended solely for reviewers. Reviewers are encouraged to provide additional comments beyond the screening checklist to help improve the manuscript.

Screening Guidelines (Overview)

Reviewers are requested to assess the manuscript on the following aspects:

  • Title: Should be concise, descriptive, and representative of the study.

  • Abstract: Should be 300–400 words, without subheadings, summarising the entire study (introduction, objectives, methods, key results with statistical significance, discussion, and conclusion).

  • Introduction: Should include relevant background literature with appropriate references.

  • Methods: Should be clearly described with necessary approvals, permissions, and references.

  • Statistical Analysis: Should be included as a separate paragraph where applicable; results should present appropriate statistical values (± SD/SEM, P values, n values).

  • Results: Should be presented in the same sequence as the methods.

  • Tables and Figures: Should be relevant, properly numbered, titled, and captioned.

  • Discussion: Should interpret results in relation to study objectives, supported by relevant literature.

  • Conclusion: Should summarise key findings and indicate scope for future research.

  • References: Must strictly follow the journal’s Vancouver reference style.

  • Language: Manuscript should be free from grammatical errors and written in appropriate academic style.

Reviewers should provide constructive comments and avoid derogatory or personal remarks.

Review Reports

Reviewers are expected to evaluate manuscripts based on:

  • Scientific content and originality

  • Relevance and significance of findings

  • Data analysis and interpretation

  • Clarity, coherence, and language quality

Review reports should include:

  • Constructive criticism

  • Clear and precise suggestions

  • Practical recommendations for improvement

Reviewers are not required to rewrite manuscripts but may suggest minor corrections where necessary.

Recommendations

Reviewers may recommend one of the following:

  • Accept the manuscript

  • Accept with minor revisions

  • Accept with moderate revisions

  • Major revision required

  • Not suitable for publication in this journal

  • Reject (with clearly stated reasons)

Timeliness and Commitment

Reviewers are expected to dedicate sufficient time to the review process and adhere strictly to the stipulated turnaround time.

Resources

  • COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers

  • ICMJE – Responsibilities in the Submission and Peer-Review Process

  • WAME – Conflict of Interest in Peer-Reviewed Medical Journals