Reviewer guidelines | AmViMed Publishers
Reviewers are asked to provide rigorous, evidence-based, and professionally framed evaluations that help editors reach defensible decisions and help authors improve the manuscript. Scope of review: Assess novelty, methodological rigor, reporting completeness, statistical soundness where relevant, and whether the conclu
Reviewers are asked to provide rigorous, evidence-based, and professionally framed evaluations that help editors reach defensible decisions and help authors improve the manuscript.
Scope of review
Assess novelty, methodological rigor, reporting completeness, statistical soundness where relevant, and whether the conclusions are justified by the presented evidence. Reviewers should also note missing controls, reporting ambiguities, or concerns about reproducibility. Comments should distinguish major issues from optional improvements.
Tone and confidentiality
Reviews must remain confidential and should be written in a constructive professional tone. Critique the manuscript, not the authors. Comments intended only for editors should be placed in the confidential editor field where available. Do not share manuscript content or use unpublished data without explicit permission.
Conflicts and timelines
Reviewers should decline invitations where conflicts of interest, insufficient expertise, or timing constraints prevent a fair review. If they accept, they should submit within the agreed window or notify editors promptly if delays arise. Late or incomplete reviews slow editorial decisions for authors and journals alike.