Guide for Reviewers


Peer review is the critical assessment of manuscripts submitted to journals by experts who are usually not part of the editorial staff. Because unbiased, independent, critical assessment is an intrinsic part of all scholarly work, including scientific research, peer review is an important extension of the scientific process. AMJ uses a double-blind peer review process with the aim to provide the optimal unbiased review of the submitted articles and to improve the quality of the work it publishes in the journal.

What the review entails?

A reviewer is invited to review an article because of his/her sufficient knowledge and experience in the area of the article. We ask the reviewers that they objectively review the article and provide constructive feedback to the editorial office so they can make a fair decision, and to the authors with recommendations on how to improve the quality of the article.
Reviewers are requested to use the following questions when reviewing the article.

  • Is the paper technically sound?
  • Are the conclusions fully supported by the data presented in the results section? If not, what further evidence is needed?
  • Is the analysis of the data appropriate?
  • Are the claims appropriately discussed in the context of previous literature?
  • Could the manuscript be revised to address any potential limitations?

As a reviewer you have the following four options to select one from

  • Accept the manuscript as it is
  • Accept but recommend major revisions
  • Accept but recommend minor revisions
  • Reject

Reviewers can provide additional feedback within the file. Reviewers should provide feedback with a courteous tone to the author.

What is the benefit for the reviewer?

We will publish list of our reviewers on the journal website which will impact reputation of the reviewers in contributing to the knowledge production in the area of medicine. The review will also improve the quality of the papers published in the AMJ which will ultimately improve the readership and impact.

Ethical considerations and conflict of interest

Reviewers should consider whether he/she has any conflict(s) of interest that may have an impact on the impartiality of his/her review (including in relation to any Company and/or commercial product mentioned in the article). Reviewers are asked to disclose any conflicts as part of his/her submitted review report. If a reviewer perceived the conflict is serious enough to preclude his/her participation, he/she should decline the invitation to review a specific article.
Reviewers must not use knowledge of the work they're reviewing before its publication to further their own interests