Reviewer Guidelines

Annals of the College of Medicine, Mosul (ACMM) is a confidential, double-blind, peer-reviewed, multidisciplinary medical journal. Reviewing a manuscript authored by a fellow scholar is both an honour and a responsibility. Despite being a demanding and time-consuming task, peer review is essential to maintaining the calibre, integrity and rigor of published research. 

Through the ACMM peer review process, comprehensive and constructive reviews are provided to authors typically within a six-week timeframe. The journal depends on reviewers with advanced experience, scholarly insight, and sound judgment. 

Roles and Responsibilities of Reviewers

By accepting an invitation to review a manuscript from the Editor-in-Chief, reviewers agree to the following:

  1. Critical and Constructive Evaluation: Examine the manuscript critically and constructively, providing detailed, clear comments to help authors improve their work.

  2. Timely Submission: Submit their review within 4 weeks of accepting the invitation; extensions are available upon request.

  3. Confidentiality: Maintain strict confidentiality. Do not share, discuss, or use any portion of the manuscript content for personal or research benefit.

  4. Conflict of Interest Disclosure: Disclose any potential conflicts of interest related to the authors or the subject matter.

  5. Misconduct Reporting: Report any suspected research or academic misconduct, including plagiarism, data manipulation, or simultaneous submission to another journal.

  6. Review of Revised Versions: Review revised versions of the manuscript if requested by the Editor.

  7. Objective Recommendations: Provide objective, evidence-based recommendations without personal criticism.

  8. Anonymity: Refrain from attempting to contact the authors or revealing their identity throughout the review process.

  9. Alternative Reviewers: Recommend alternative reviewers if unable to undertake the review.

Evaluation Criteria

Reviewers are asked to assess the following elements when evaluating a manuscript:

 
Criterion Description
Originality  Does the paper present new and significant contributions distinct from existing literature?
Scientific Merit  Is the methodology sound? Are the conclusions supported by the data?
Scholarly Value Does the work advance knowledge in its field?
Ethical Compliance Is there any evidence of plagiarism, data manipulation, or other ethical concerns?
Structure & Clarity Is the manuscript well-organized, grammatically sound, and compliant with ACMM author guidelines?
References Are relevant studies cited properly? Are there any missing or unnecessary citations?
Figures & Tables Are visuals relevant, clear, and of publishable quality?
Statistical Analysis Are statistical methods sound? Are error bars and p-values described accurately?
Relevance to Journal Is the manuscript within the journal's scope and useful to its readership?

 

Tone and Conduct

  • Maintain a professional and respectful tone in all comments.

  • Avoid personal criticism of the authors.

  • Support statements with evidence and references.

  • If unsure about a specific element (e.g., a dataset), indicate this clearly in the report.

Use of AI by Reviewers

Reviewers must not use AI tools without prior approval from the journal. Manuscripts must remain confidential and must not be uploaded to platforms where confidentiality cannot be assured. Any permitted use of AI must be disclosed, and reviewers remain fully responsible for the accuracy and integrity of their review.

Report Format

Reviewers should include the following sections in their review report:

  1. Summary of Key Findings: What are the strengths of the manuscript?

  2. Major Concerns: What must be revised or improved?

  3. Minor Suggestions: Grammar, spelling, references, formatting, etc.

  4. Recommendation (select one): Accept, Minor Revision, Major Revision, Reject.

Reviewers may also include confidential comments to the editor; however, such comments should not contradict the public review report.

Reviewer Acknowledgment

ACMM recognizes its reviewers annually (unless anonymity is preferred). Certificates of review are available upon request.