Reviewer Guidelines

Reviewer Guidelines for JUPSP

A Professional Standard for Ethical, Rigorous, and Fair Peer Review

1. Role & Responsibilities

By accepting a review assignment, you commit to the values of JUPSP:

  • Objectivity, collegiality, and timeliness
  • Evaluating scientific rigor, originality, ethical compliance, and clarity
  • Adhering to COPE, ICMJE, and JUPSP review ethics
  • Preserving manuscript confidentiality throughout the process
  • Promptly declaring any conflicts of interest

Your input shapes global medical scholarship. We’re honoured to have your expertise.

2. Review Criteria Checklist

Please evaluate the manuscript using the following dimensions:

Scientific Merit

  • Is the research question well-defined and relevant?
  • Are study methods valid and appropriately described?
  • Are results interpreted accurately and transparently?
  • Do conclusions align with the data?

Originality & Impact

  • Does the work contribute novel insights to the field?
  • Is it suitable for a multidisciplinary audience?

Ethical Compliance

  • Have IRB approvals and informed consent been disclosed?
  • Are disclosures of funding and conflicts present?
  • Are there signs of plagiarism, data fabrication, or ethical breaches?

Structure & Clarity

  • Is the manuscript well-organized and professionally written?
  • Are figures and tables well-designed and correctly labeled?
  • Are references relevant, current, and properly formatted?

3. Confidentiality & Conduct

All manuscript materials are confidential and must not be:

  • Shared, stored, or reused
  • Discussed externally
  • Reverse-engineered to identify authors (double-blind is enforced)

If you suspect ethical violations or data irregularities, report privately to the Editorial Office at journal@aupsp.com. JUPSP follows COPE investigation protocols.

4. Conflicts of Interest

You must decline a review if:

  • You’ve collaborated or co-authored with any listed authors within the last 3 years
  • You have personal, professional, or financial stakes in the outcome
  • You cannot offer an unbiased judgment due to institutional or ideological proximity

✉️ Report any concerns to the editorial team confidentially.

5. Reviewer Recommendations

Please select one of the following:

  •  Accept as is
  •  Accept with minor revisions
  •  Major revisions required
  •  Reject (provide specific rationale)
  •  Reject and suggest resubmission following major rewrite

Constructive comments for both editors and authors are mandatory. Tone should remain scholarly, even during criticism.

6. Timeline & Communication

  • Reviews are expected within 21 days of assignment
  • Need more time? Contact us early—we’re flexible
  • For revised manuscripts, reviewers may request re-assignment or decline

7. Recognition

JUPSP honours reviewers through:

  • A Certificate of Review upon request
  • Listing on the Annual Editorial Honour Roll
  • Consideration for future roles on Advisory Panels and Editorial Board

We deeply value your contribution to scientific integrity and advancement.

8. Legal and Ethical Alignment

These guidelines follow international benchmarks:

Organization

Compliance Domains

COPE

Ethical oversight, misconduct handling

ICMJE

Peer transparency, authorship standards

DOAJ

Open access policy, metadata rigor

PubMed

XML standards, data integrity

Web of Science

Review documentation, citation ethics

Reviewer Guidelines

Use of AI in Peer Review
Reviewers are discouraged from using AI-generated content in their evaluations, summaries, or comments unless strictly necessary for language refinement or data visualization. Any such use must be disclosed to the editorial office, and all confidential manuscript content must be protected from exposure to external systems, including AI tools. Review decisions must be human-driven, based on scientific rigor and ethical standards. 

Questions or Clarifications

Reach out to the editorial team at:
journal@aupsp.com
JUPSP thanks you for upholding the values of ethical, scholarly review.