For Reviewers

Peer-Review Policy:

(1) Screening

All manuscripts submitted to MedERA will initially undergo internal screening for their suitability according to journal guidelines, originality, and similarity index. Similarity index is assessed using Turnitin. A manuscript not found suitable for publication as regards the topic or poor writing will be rejected on the internal peer review.

(2) Peer- Review

After in-house screening, the manuscript will be sent for external peer reviews. Original articles authored by the editorial board will also externally peer-reviewed. Editorials and obituaries authored by the editor-in-chief will not be subjected to an external peer review. This will be a double-blind process. Research articles (a blinded documented containing the original manuscript along with a Peer-review proforma) are to be reviewed by two peer reviewers.

A reviewer will be given 3 weeks to review an article. A reminder will be sent if the reviewer doesn’t submit the review in 3 weeks. If the reviewer doesn’t respond within one week after the reminder, then the manuscript will be sent to a 3rd reviewer. Each reviewer will be asked to evaluate not more than two manuscripts for each issue. The reviewer may give his suggestions as comments in the blinded manuscript document. A reviewer must fill a pre-set Reviewer’s proforma (Reviewer's Proforma can be downloaded from here.) which summarizes the reviewer’s opinion on each part of the article and a final opinion on the acceptance, rejection, or acceptance after minor or major correction of the article.

The reviewer:

(1) will give general comments on importance of the subject, write up style, spelling and grammar etc.

(2) will ensure that the abstract is structured as per guidelines, has up to 250 words with 3-5 key words mentioned.

(3) will comment on the ‘Introduction’ if it is well- introduced, highlights the importance of topic, provides a brief reference to the previous literature, clearly mentions the rationale of the study, and the objectives are stated clearly.

(4) will check if the study design, duration & place where the study was conducted, inclusion & exclusion criteria design and methodology are described well, and statistical tests are incorporated.

(5) will comment on the ‘Results’ if the data is presented in clear sentences supported by tables and graphs with statistical analysis. The reviewer also comments if the results relevant and coherent with aims and objectives of the study.

(6) will comment on the ‘Discussion’ if the key findings are discussed and compared with already reported literature.

(7) will check if the conclusion, Strengths, limitations of the study and future recommendations are mentioned.

(8) will check if the source of funding is declared.

(9) will check if the Acknowledgements are mentioned, if any.

(10) will check if the references are in Vancouver style, 15 -25 in number and are 5-10 years old at max.

Reviewers should declare any conflict of interest (if any) to the editor and must complete the review within a specified period (usually four weeks). The reviewer's comments will be communicated to the author upon receipt. The author will be given two weeks to incorporate the reviewers’ comments in the revised manuscript. The revised version of the article will be checked for incorporation of suggested changes. A period of 2-4 months is set to finalize the process, and if approved, a letter of acceptance is issued to the author.

Due to the blind peer review policy, details of the reviewers are not shared publicly. However, the details can be provided to national and international indexing agencies (e.g., HEC Pakistan, PMC, Scopus, DOAJ etc.) on demand.

(3) Appeal on Rejected Articles

Authors whose articles have been rejected have the right to send a letter of appeal giving detailed explanations. This will be reviewed in-house and a decision will be taken accordingly.