What are the guidelines for ICMJE reviewers?

A rising number of organizations advertise themselves as “scholarly medical journals” yet do not operate as such. These “predatory” or “pseudo-journals” accept and publish practically all submissions and collect article processing (or publishing) fees, which are typically disclosed to authors after their manuscript is accepted for publication. They frequently claim to undertake peer review but do not, and their titles may be deliberately similar to those of well-established publications. They may claim to be members of the ICMJE but are not and follow the recommendations of organizations such as the ICMJE, COPE, and WAME. Researchers must be aware of the existence of such entities and refrain from submitting research for publication to them.

Check our Examples to know more how we research/review/edit publication support papers.

The International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) provides guidelines for reviewers to ensure a standardized and rigorous review process for biomedical manuscripts. While the ICMJE primarily focuses on guidelines for manuscript preparation, they indirectly influence the review process by emphasizing ethical standards and methodological rigour. Here are some general guidelines for reviewers:

1. Confidentiality:
• Reviewers should treat manuscripts as confidential documents and must not disclose, discuss, or use the information in the manuscript for personal gain.
2. Timeliness:
• Reviewers are expected to complete their reviews promptly and within the specified timeframe provided by the journal. Timely reviews are crucial for the efficient publication process.
3. Conflict of Interest:
• Reviewers should declare any potential conflicts of interest that may bias their review. If a conflict exists, the reviewer should decline the review or disclose the conflict to the editorial office.
4. Objectivity and Integrity:
• Reviews should be conducted objectively and with integrity. Personal criticism of the author is inappropriate; instead, peer reviewers should focus on the scientific and methodological aspects of the manuscript.
5. Methodological Rigor:
• Reviewers should assess the study design, methodology, statistical analysis, and interpretation of results. They should ensure that the research is conducted ethically and adheres to relevant guidelines.
6. Relevance and Significance:
• Reviewers should evaluate the significance and relevance of the study to the field. Manuscripts should contribute valuable information and insights to the existing body of knowledge.
7. Clarity and Presentation:
• Reviewers should assess the clarity and coherence of the manuscript. Feedback on the organization of content, language usage, and overall presentation is valuable.
8. Ethical Considerations:
• Reviewers should be vigilant for any ethical concerns, such as plagiarism, duplicate publication, or data fabrication. If any such issues are identified, the reviewer should bring them to the editor’s attention.
9. Constructive Feedback:
• Reviewers should provide constructive and specific feedback to authors, offering suggestions for improvement. Critiques should be respectful and aimed at helping authors enhance the quality of their work.
10. Recommendation:
• Reviewers typically provide a recommendation to the editor regarding the manuscript’s suitability for publication. Recommendations may include acceptance, minor/major revisions, or rejection.

It’s important to note that specific journals may have additional or slightly modified guidelines for their reviewers. Reviewers should familiarize themselves with the particular instructions provided by the journal to which they have been invited to review a manuscript.

Check our Blog for guidance on Use of ICMJE URM for ethical guidance

Conclusion

In conclusion, adherence to the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) guidelines is paramount for maintaining the integrity and quality of the biomedical manuscript review process. Reviewers play a crucial role in upholding ethical standards, ensuring methodological rigour, and contributing to the overall scientific discourse. Maintaining confidentiality, declaring conflicts of interest, and providing timely, objective, and constructive feedback are fundamental aspects of a reviewer’s responsibilities. By following these guidelines, reviewers not only contribute to the enhancement of individual manuscripts but also uphold the credibility and reliability of the scientific literature as a whole. Consistent commitment to these principles fosters a robust and trustworthy peer-review system in biomedical research.

TAGS

☛Patient Journey & Insights – Machine Learning

☛Predictive Analytics

☛Scientific Interpretation, Reporting and Visualization