EDRBJ makes great efforts to disseminate scientific knowledge, and the credibility of the published article is completely dependent on the proper peer-review process. The reviewers’ comments and recommendations are an essential guide to informing the editor’s decision on an article. EDRBJ reviewers are asked to provide authentic, positive reviews and criticisms for the relevant article. A referee should review articles received from the editorial office or editor within the specific timeline. The reviewers should not share the data with any outsiders in order to protect the data of the article assigned to them without the permission of the editor.
The interested reviewer must have a specialist diploma or a valid doctorate degree in medicine, dentistry, biostatistics, or relevant fields. Also, the reviewer is expected to review at least 1 to 2 articles per calendar year. The reviewer is invited to evaluate the submitted article within two weeks by an invitation email, including their log-in information for the electronic submission system. The reviewer should log in to the online submission system in three (3) days after he/she received the invitation email and inform the editorial board if they will review the manuscript or not by selecting one of the two options in the system (“I Accept” or “I Decline”). The invitation link is no longer valid after 3 days.
There are occasions where a reviewer may be unable to complete his/her review within the allotted time due to unforeseen circumstances. In this case, please contact the editor immediately so that arrangements can be made for the review to be completed in a timely fashion.
– The reviewers are requested to evaluate the manuscript on the basis on the scope of the journal, novelty of studies carried out in the paper, data/statistics provided by the author etc. Journal also sets a specific timeline in which the reviewers are requested to provide the recommendation.
– The reviewer should have identified and commented on the major strengths and weaknesses of the study design and methodology.
– The criticisms made should be presented in an impartial manner, and remarks that hassle the author should not be used.
– The reviewer should comment correctly and constructively on the quality of the author’s interpretation of the data, including acceptance of its limitations.
– The reviewer should ensure that findings or argument that has been previously published be accompanied by a relevant citation
– The reviewer should comment on any ethical concerns revealed by the study or possible evidence of low standards of scientific conduct.
– The reviewer should provide useful suggestions to the author for the improvement of the manuscript.
– The reviewer should remark a confidential statement to the editor and advise about the article, acceptance, rejection, or revision of the decision.