Peer reviewers keep the medical literature trustworthy. LMDAJ serves clinicians and researchers in Liberia, West Africa and beyond, and your expert, constructive review helps authors improve their work and helps editors make fair decisions. This page explains what we ask of you, how to use the reviewer portal, and how to write a helpful report.
Quick links
| Resource | Where |
|---|---|
| Reviewer portal login | Log in to the portal |
| Peer Review Policy | Peer Review Policy |
| Publication ethics and AI policy | Publication Ethics · AI Policy |
| Editorial office | Contact the Editorial Office |
Before you accept an invitation
Ask yourself:
- Do I understand a reviewer’s role and responsibilities?
- Am I qualified to review the main parts of this paper? (If only some parts, tell the editor.)
- Can I return the report by the deadline? (14–21 days is the proposed target.)
- Do I have any competing interest, such as a recent collaboration, shared institution, financial tie, rivalry or personal relationship with the authors?
- Do I have a real reason to decline? Declining quickly, with names of alternative reviewers, helps everyone.
The invitation email shows the title and abstract only. Treat it as confidential.
How to accept and submit a review in the portal
- Log in to the reviewer account with the link in the invitation email.
- Open Invitations (or the new-assignment notice) and read the abstract.
- Choose Accept or Decline. If you accept, the full manuscript and files open.
- Read the manuscript and supplementary files, then complete the review form.
- Enter comments for the authors, optional confidential comments to the editor, and your recommendation: Accept, Minor revisions, Major revisions or Reject.
- Check the declarations (competing interests, no AI upload) and Submit.
- If the paper is revised, you may be invited to re-review the new version.
For technical problems, please contact the editorial office.
What we ask you to assess
- Importance and originality: is the question relevant to health and clinical practice, including in resource-limited settings? Small or local studies are valued if the methods are sound.
- Methods: is the design appropriate and described well enough to repeat? Is a reporting guideline (CONSORT, STROBE, PRISMA, CARE and others from the EQUATOR Network) followed?
- Data and statistics: are the analyses valid and the numbers consistent?
- Conclusions: are they supported by the data, and are the limitations stated?
- Ethics: ethics approval, informed consent, patient privacy, trial registration, funding and competing interests.
- Integrity: any sign of plagiarism, duplicate publication, fabricated data or manipulated images.
- Presentation: clarity of writing, tables, figures and references. Please do not penalise authors for writing in an additional language.
Writing a good report
Suggested structure
- Summary (2–4 sentences): what the paper claims and does.
- Major concerns: issues that affect validity, each explained and numbered.
- Minor concerns: smaller points, references, clarity, typos.
- Confidential comments to the editor: anything not for the authors (for example, concerns about misconduct, or your overall view of priority).
- Recommendation.
Good practice
- Be specific, polite and constructive; criticise the work, not the people.
- Give a reason and, where possible, a reference or suggestion for every criticism.
- Do not put your recommendation in the comments for the authors if it differs from your recommendation to the editor.
- Say what is good as well as what needs work.
- If you want to use or cite unpublished data from the manuscript, ask the editor first; generally you may not.
- Defamatory, offensive or confidential comments may be edited or removed by the editor.
Your duties
- Keep the manuscript, files and your report confidential; do not share, discuss or use them.
- Declare competing interests.
- Return your report on time, or tell us early.
- Do not pass the invitation to a colleague without the editor’s approval.
- Do not contact authors; send all queries via the editorial office.
- Respect double-anonymised review: do not try to identify the authors, and do not reveal your own identity in your report or files.
- Report suspected misconduct to the editor.
- Reviews follow the COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers and ICMJE recommendations.
AI tools and peer review
- Do not use AI tools (ChatGPT, other chatbots, language models) to generate or judge the scientific content of your review.
- Do not upload the manuscript, any part of it, or your review into any AI tool, even for language editing. Doing so breaches confidentiality.
- You remain accountable for everything in your report.
- If you believe the manuscript contains undeclared AI-generated content, tell the editor.
See the full AI Policy.
Recognition and benefits
- Thank-you message and decision notification after each review.
- Certificate or letter of reviewing activity on request.
- Annual list of reviewers in the journal (with permission).
Training and further reading
- COPE: Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers.
- ICMJE: Recommendations for the Conduct, Reporting, Editing and Publication of Scholarly Work in Medical Journals.
- EQUATOR Network: reporting guidelines checklists.
- Nature Masterclasses: free online course Focus on Peer Review.
Frequently asked questions
How long should a review take?
Most take 2–4 hours. We ask for a report within 14–21 days.
What if I need more time?
Tell the editorial office as early as you can.
May I sign my review?
No. LMDAJ uses double-anonymised review, so the authors do not see your name and you do not see theirs. Do not include your name or identifying details in your comments to the authors.
Will I see the editor’s decision?
Yes, you will be told the decision and may see other reviewers’ comments.
May I review a revision?
Editors may ask the original reviewers to re-review.
I think I recognise the authors. What should I do?
Reviewers are not told who the authors are and must not try to find out (for example, by searching online). If you recognise the work or suspect who wrote it, or have a conflict of interest, tell the editor before accepting or as soon as you notice. Usually you should decline.
I am an early-career researcher. May I review?
Yes; early-career reviewers can be invited or co-review with a mentor, with the editor’s approval.
Can reviews be published?
Not currently.
What if I find a problem such as fabricated data?
Tell the handling editor confidentially and do not contact the authors.
Contact
Reviewer support and questions about the Peer Review Policy: please use the Contact the Editorial Office page.
Appendix A: Reviewer report template
| Manuscript ID / title | … |
| Competing interests | ☐ none ☐ declared: … |
| 1. Summary of the work | … |
| 2. Major concerns (numbered) | … |
| 3. Minor concerns (numbered) | … |
| 4. Ethics, reporting guideline and data availability comments | … |
| 5. Comments for the authors only | … |
| 6. Confidential comments to the editor | … |
| 7. Recommendation | ☐ Accept ☐ Minor revisions ☐ Major revisions ☐ Reject |
| 8. Declarations | ☐ This is my own independent assessment ☐ I did not upload any part of this manuscript to an AI tool ☐ I kept the manuscript confidential |
Appendix B: Reviewer checklist
- Is the question clear and important?
- Are the design, sample and methods appropriate and described?
- Are the statistics sound?
- Are conclusions supported and limitations stated?
- Are ethics, consent, trial registration and funding adequately addressed?
- Are there integrity concerns?
- Is my feedback specific, courteous and constructive?
- Did I keep everything confidential and avoid AI uploads?