Journal of Allama Iqbal Medical College

1. Peer Review at JAIMC

• JAIMC follows a double-blind peer review policy.
• After initial editorial assessment, each manuscript is sent to one internal reviewer, one external reviewer and a statistical reviewer, selected by subject specialty.
• Every manuscript is screened with Turnitin before peer review; manuscripts above 19% similarity are returned to authors.
• Reviewers are given an average of two weeks to complete a review.
• The final decision to accept or reject rests with the editors.

2. Who Can Review

Reviewers are invited according to their expertise. JAIMC looks for reviewers who:

• Hold a relevant postgraduate qualification or recognized subject experience, with publications or teaching experience.
• Have no conflict of interest with the authors or the work.
• Can complete the review within the allowed time.
• Will follow the confidentiality and ethical requirements below.

Reviewers interested in joining the reviewer database may contact the editorial office with a short CV and areas of expertise. Statistical reviewers should have documented experience in biostatistics or epidemiology.

3. Accepting or Declining an Invitation

1. Read the title and abstract before replying.
2. Decline if the manuscript is outside your expertise, you cannot meet the deadline, or you have a conflict of interest.
3. Accept only if you can give the manuscript your full attention.
4. Respond promptly, even when declining, so the manuscript is not delayed.

4. Confidentiality

• The manuscript is a confidential document. Do not share or discuss it without editorial permission.
• Do not use manuscript information, data, ideas or text for your own advantage before publication.
• Do not contact authors directly or try to identify them.
• Do not identify yourself in comments to authors.
• Delete or securely destroy manuscript files after the review and editorial process are complete.

5. Conflict of Interest

Decline and inform the editor if any competing interest could influence, or reasonably appear to influence, your judgement. Examples include:

• Current or recent collaboration, co-authorship, supervision, student relationship or same department/institution.
• Personal relationship, rivalry or dispute with an author.
• Financial or commercial interest in the product, company or outcome.
• Direct competition with the authors on the same research question.
• Prior review of the same manuscript when impartiality cannot be maintained.

6. Use of Artificial Intelligence

• Do not upload the manuscript or any part of it to a public generative AI tool.
• The review must reflect the reviewer’s own expert judgement.
• AI tools must not be used to generate the assessment or recommendation.
• If a permitted tool is used only for minor language editing of the reviewer’s own report, the reviewer remains fully responsible and should disclose this to the editor.

7. How to Evaluate a Manuscript

7.1 Originality and importance

• Is the question new, relevant and important for JAIMC readers, including Pakistan and comparable settings?
• Does the work add to existing knowledge, with a current and balanced literature review?

7.2 Ethics

• Is ethics approval stated with committee name, number and date?
• For case reports, is informed consent stated?
• Are participant identities protected?
• For trials, is prospective registration reported?
• Are COI, funding, contributor and AI-use declarations present and credible?

7.3 Methods and design

• Is the design appropriate to the question?
• Are setting, dates, population, eligibility criteria and sampling technique described?
• Is the sample size justified with assumptions?
• Are variables, outcomes and instruments clear and valid?
• Are major sources of bias addressed?
• Is the correct reporting guideline followed?

7.4 Results and statistics

• Are statistical tests appropriate and correctly applied?
• Are effect sizes and confidence intervals reported, not only p-values?
• Are multiple comparisons and missing data handled properly?
• Do tables, figures, text and abstract agree numerically?
• Are there signs of selective reporting or implausibly perfect results?

7.5 Discussion and conclusions

• Are conclusions supported by the data and appropriate to the study design?
• Are limitations honestly discussed?
• Is the study compared appropriately with previous work?

7.6 Presentation and references

• Is the abstract accurate and consistent with the manuscript?
• Is the language clear? Weak English alone is not a reason for rejection.
• Are references current, relevant, accurate and in Vancouver style?
• Are there signs of excessive self-citation or fabricated references?

8. Concerns About Misconduct

Tell the editor in confidence; do not investigate independently or contact the authors. Report concerns such as:

• Plagiarism, duplicate publication or salami slicing.
• Fabricated, falsified or manipulated data/images.
• Ghost, guest or gift authorship.
• Unethical research, missing approval/consent or identifiable patients.
• Undisclosed conflicts of interest or funding.

9. Writing the Review

• Begin with a short summary of the study in your own words.
• Separate major concerns from minor concerns.
• Be specific and cite page, section, table or line numbers.
• Explain why something is a problem and how it might be addressed.
• Be objective, constructive and courteous.
• Support statements with evidence or references.
• Keep comments to authors separate from confidential comments to the editor.
• Do not state your accept/reject recommendation in comments to the authors.
• Do not rewrite the manuscript or spend the review on language editing.

10. Recommendations

If rejection is recommended, JAIMC sends the manuscript to another reviewer together with the first reviewer’s comments before the editors make the final decision.

11. Timelines

JAIMC aims to complete peer review within 28 days. Repeated missed deadlines without notice may result in removal from the reviewer database.

12. Submitting the Review

1. Log in to the OJS site at jms.jaimc.org ↗.
2. Accept the invitation and download manuscript files.
3. Complete the review form and enter comments for authors and, separately, for the editor.
4. Select your recommendation and submit the review.
5. Contact the editorial office if technical problems occur.

13. After Your Review

• You will be informed of the final decision.
• You may be asked to review a revised version.
• Your identity remains confidential; continue to protect confidentiality after publication.
• Report any later-discovered issue with the manuscript or publication to the editorial office.

14. Recognition

JAIMC values its reviewers. In each issue, the journal names a Distinguished Reviewer on the website in recognition of exceptional contribution based on quality, timeliness and constructiveness.

15. Concerns and Complaints

Reviewers may contact the editorial office about review-process or journal-conduct concerns. Complaints are handled under the journal complaint policy and COPE guidance.

16. Contact

Editorial Office, Journal of Allama Iqbal Medical College
Allama Iqbal Medical College, Lahore, Pakistan
Phone: +92 42 99231453
Website: jaimc.org
Submission portal: jms.jaimc.org
Email: Editorial@jaimc.org

Appendix: Reviewer Form

The OJS review form follows this structure. Rate each item and explain any “No” or “Partly” response in the comments.

B. Comments for the authors

• Summary of the study in your own words
• Major concerns (numbered)
• Minor concerns (numbered)

C. Confidential comments for the editor

• Ethics, integrity, plagiarism or conflict concerns
• Overall importance of the work and confidence in reviewer expertise
• Any other information the editor should have

D. Recommendation

Accept   /   Minor revision   /   Major revision   /   Reject

E. Reviewer declaration