Reviewer Guidelines for The American Journal of Patient Health Info (AJPHI)

Thank you for agreeing to review for the American Journal of Patient Health Info (AJPHI). AJPHI is a medical journal targeted for patients and their families. Your expertise and insights are crucial to maintaining the quality and integrity of the journal. Our peer reviewers play a crucial role in upholding the integrity of scholarly work published in AJPHI. They must assess manuscripts promptly, transparently, and ethically, adhering to COPE guidelines. Reviewers are expected to meet certain criteria: they should have no conflicts of interest with the authors, not be affiliated with the same institution. Additionally, reviewers should hold a MD degree, possess relevant experience, be recognized scholars in the relevant area, and have an official academic affiliation. These standards ensure fair and rigorous evaluation of submitted papers, maintaining the quality and credibility of our publications so that it can be trusted by our readers.

General questions to help guide your review report for review articles.

 ◉ Is the manuscript clear, and presented in a well-structured manner? The main goal of our journal is to write articles which are easy for patients to understand. The article should be able to be read and understood by a fifth grader. For example, if an article mentions “The next step in the diagnosis of coronary artery disease is coronary angiogram”. You can recommend explaining the process of coronary angiogram simply as coronary angiogram is a procedure by which cardiologists will inject dye into the heart arteries to see blockages. It helps to diagnose heart conditions like coronary artery disease.

◉ Are the figures/ infographics appropriate? Are they easy to interpret and understand?

◉ Is the review clear, comprehensive and of relevance to the field? Is it suitable and evidence based?

◉ Are the statements and conclusions drawn coherently and supported by the listed citations.

◉ The content of your review report will be rated by an Academic Editor from a scientific point of view as well as general usefulness to the improvement of the manuscript.

 

Please follow these guidelines to ensure a thorough and constructive review process.

1. General Responsibilities
◉ Timeliness: Complete your review within the allocated timeframe. If you need an extension or are unable to review, inform the editor as soon as possible.
◉ Confidentiality: Treat the manuscript and associated materials as confidential. Do not share or discuss with others without explicit permission from the editor.
◉ Objectivity and Fairness: Provide unbiased feedback. Avoid personal criticism of the authors.

 

2. Review Structure
Your review should include the following sections:
 ◉ Major Comments: highlight areas of weakness. Comment on the completeness of the review topic covered, the relevance of the review topic, the gap in knowledge identified, the appropriateness of references, etc. The comments need to be focused on the scientific content of the manuscript and should be specific enough for the authors to be able to respond.
Please include specific comments referring to line numbers, or figures that point out inaccuracies within the text or sentences that are unclear. Review comments should concentrate on scientific content, not on spelling, formatting, or language issues, which can be fixed later.
 ◉ Minor Comments: Note smaller issues, such as specific clarifications, additional references, and minor corrections.
 ◉ Recommendation: Clearly state your recommendation (accept, minor revisions, major
revisions, or reject) with a brief justification.

 

3. Detailed Criteria for Evaluation
 ◉ Title and Abstract/Key Highlights
Is the title clear and reflective of the study content?
Does the abstract accurately summarize the relevant details of the topic?
 ◉ Introduction/Background
Does the introduction provide sufficient background and context?
 ◉ Discussion
Does the review article adequately mention the latest advancements based on existing
literature?
Reviewers shouldn't overly cite their own work or others to boost citations. Only include references if they truly enhance the manuscript.
Reviewers are prohibited from using AI or AI-assisted tools (such as ChatGPT) to draft, edit, polish or review submissions in order to produce peer review reports.
 ◉ References:
Are the references current and relevant?
Are there any significant omissions in the literature review?
 ◉ Language and Style:
Is the manuscript well-written and free of grammatical errors?
Is the writing concise and professional?
 ◉ Ethical Considerations
Ensure the manuscript adheres to ethical guidelines, including patient confidentiality and
informed consent.

Report any suspicions of plagiarism, data fabrication, or other unethical practices to the
editor.

4. Submission of Review
 ◉ Submit your review through the journal’s online submission system.
 ◉ Include your review comments in the designated fields or upload a document as required.
 ◉ Indicate your recommendation (accept, minor revisions, major revisions, or reject).

5. Communication with Authors
 ◉ Provide constructive and polite feedback.
 ◉ Offer specific suggestions for improvement.
 ◉ Avoid comments that are overly critical or dismissive.

6. Potential Conflicts of Interest
◉ Reviewers must disclose any potential conflicts of interest, such as working in the same institute as authors or having collaborated with them recently.
◉ Personal relationships or financial gains related to the paper's publication should be declared.
 ◉ Non-financial conflicts like political or ideological differences should also be disclosed.
◉ Reviewers should mention if they've previously reviewed the manuscript for another journal.
◉ They're encouraged to assess improvements since the previous review.
◉ Reviewers should refer to ethical guidelines like those from the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).

Thank you for your contribution to the American Journal of Patient Health Info. Your expertise ensures the publication of high-quality, impactful research.
For any questions or further assistance, please contact the editorial office at editor@ajphi.org