Pacific Journal of Medical and Health Sciences values the essential contribution that peer reviewers make to the integrity and quality of academic publishing. Reviewers are invited on the basis of their subject expertise, academic standing and freedom from conflicts of interest. The journal is committed to ensuring that the peer-review process is rigorous, fair, timely and conducted in accordance with the highest ethical standards.

These guidelines are intended to assist reviewers in understanding their responsibilities and in producing reviewer reports that are constructive, objective and beneficial to authors and the editorial process alike.

Pacific Journal of Medical and Health Sciences operates a double-blind peer-review system. Under this system, the identities of both the authors and the reviewers remain confidential throughout the entire review process. Reviewers must not attempt to identify the authors of a manuscript and must notify the editorial office immediately if they become aware of the authors' identity during the review.

All peer reviewers are independent of and external to the journal. Reviewers are selected exclusively from outside the Editorial Board and the institution of Pacific Medical University, unless no suitably qualified external reviewer is available, in which case any exception will be clearly documented. This ensures that the review process is conducted with full objectivity and freedom from institutional bias.

Pacific Journal of Medical and Health Sciences is firmly committed to upholding the integrity of published research. Issues of copyright infringement, plagiarism, duplicate submission and other breaches of publication ethics are treated with the utmost seriousness. All submitted manuscripts may be screened using plagiarism detection software.

Where a manuscript is found to contain plagiarised content, unauthorised use of third-party copyright material, or where the authorship of the work is contested, the journal reserves the right to take appropriate action. Such action may include, but is not limited to:

• Publishing a correction (erratum or corrigendum)
• Retracting the published article
• Notifying the author's Head of Department, Dean or relevant academic bodies
• Banning the author from future submission to the journal
• Pursuing appropriate legal remedies

Reviewers who identify or suspect any of the following concerns during the course of their review are strongly advised to contact the editor without delay. All such matters must be treated with strict confidentiality and must not be discussed with colleagues other than the editor:

1. The manuscript appears to have been previously published or simultaneously submitted to another journal.
2. The manuscript appears to duplicate the work of others without appropriate acknowledgement.
3. There are concerns regarding the ethical conduct of the research described in the manuscript.
4. There is reason to suspect an undeclared conflict of interest associated with the manuscript. Editors may have access to additional information relevant to such concerns and reviewers are encouraged to consult them.

Reviewers are requested to carefully consider any potential conflicts of interest before agreeing to undertake a review. A conflict of interest may arise where a reviewer has a personal, professional, financial or intellectual relationship with the authors, the institution, or the subject matter of the manuscript that could compromise the objectivity of the review.

Reviewers must inform the editorial office of any such conflict as promptly and discreetly as possible, and decline the review assignment where a conflict is identified. Reviewer assessments must at all times be based solely on the scientific merit, clarity and quality of the manuscript, and must not be influenced by personal, financial, intellectual or other biases.

Reviewers are invited to assess manuscripts by the editorial team via email. In order to avoid unnecessary delays in the review process, reviewers are requested to respond to invitations as promptly as possible, regardless of whether they are able to accept or must decline.

If a reviewer is unable to complete a review within the requested timeframe, the editorial office should be notified at the earliest opportunity.

Suggestions for alternative reviewers who may be suitably qualified to assess the manuscript are always welcome and greatly appreciated.

Pacific Journal of Medical and Health Sciences is committed to a transparent and timely review process. The following timeframe applies specifically to reviewers:

• Reviewers are requested to respond to a review invitation within 5 working days of receipt, confirming whether they are able to accept or must decline the assignment.
• Upon accepting the invitation, reviewers are requested to submit their completed review report within 21 days.
• If a reviewer requires additional time to complete the review, the editorial office must be notified before the 21-day deadline so that an extension may be considered without causing undue delay to the author.
• Where a reviewer is unable to complete an accepted review within an agreed extended timeframe, the editorial office reserves the right to reassign the manuscript to an alternative reviewer in the interest of timely communication with the author.

The journal sincerely values the time and expertise that reviewers contribute to the peer-review process. Adherence to these timeframes is greatly appreciated and directly supports the journal's commitment to authors of completing the full review process within 30 to 45 days of submission.

Reviewers are requested to approach each manuscript systematically and to produce a structured, well-reasoned report. The following guidance is provided to assist reviewers in conducting an effective and thorough assessment.

Reviewers who are undertaking a peer review for the first time, or who are uncertain about any aspect of the review process or the journal's specific requirements, are warmly encouraged to contact the editorial office for guidance. The editorial team is always available to discuss expectations, clarify the scope of the review and offer support to reviewers at all stages of their career.

• Read the manuscript carefully in its entirety before beginning the formal evaluation.
• Consider whether the manuscript falls within the aims and scope of the journal.
• Assess the overall significance and originality of the research.
• Evaluate whether the work makes a meaningful contribution to existing knowledge.

• Assess the technical accuracy and scientific validity of the content.
• Evaluate the appropriateness and rigour of the research methodology employed.
• Consider whether the conclusions are adequately supported by the results.
• Verify the accuracy and completeness of the references cited.

• Assess the overall structure and logical flow of the manuscript.
• Evaluate the quality of written English and clarity of expression.
• Consider whether the title accurately reflects the content.
• Assess whether the abstract provides a clear summary of the work.
• Evaluate the effectiveness of the introduction.
• Consider whether the manuscript is accessible to an international readership.
• Assess the internal consistency of the manuscript.
• Verify that the manuscript type is consistent with the article types accepted by the journal.

• Provide comments that are objective and impartial.
• Be specific and constructive in identifying areas requiring revision.
• Suggest additional literature where appropriate.
• Clearly distinguish comments intended for authors and editors.
• Reviewers should not rewrite sections of the manuscript.

Upon completing the review, the reviewer must provide a clear recommendation regarding the disposition of the manuscript. Recommendations should fall within one of the following categories:

• Accept as submitted
• Accept with minor revisions
• Major revision required
• Reject

The recommendation should be consistent with the content of the reviewer report and should be accompanied by sufficient reasoning to assist the editor in making the final publication decision.

Reviewers must treat all manuscripts under review as strictly confidential documents. The content of the manuscript, the reviewer's assessment, and all correspondence relating to the review must not be shared, disclosed or discussed with any third party without the explicit permission of the editor.

This obligation of confidentiality continues after the review process has been completed.

A Sample Reviewer Report form is available for download from the journal website at:

Download Sample Reviewers' Report