Reviewer's Guidelines

Reviewing a research paper is an art, a commitment, a service to the profession and above all a privilege. The process of reviewing has many benefits of its own. It enriches your knowledge about the current scenario in the field of research & keeps you updated on many other relevant issues in the field.

A reviewer has two functions to perform:

  1. To assist the editor in making decision whether to accept or reject a paper.
  2. To give suggestions to the author(s) about improvement of the manuscript by giving constructive feedback.

Guidelines for reviewing article:

A.Before accepting an article for review:

1. Avoid a potential conflict of interest: If you are in any way professionally linked to the article or if you work in the same department as the author then you may either decline to review or inform the editor and let the editor decide about your role as a reviewer. A competing interest arises when the primary interest (validity of research) may be influenced by secondary interest (personal matters such as financial gain, personal relationship or professional rivalry)

2. Check that you have enough time: Ideally an article should take about 5 hours to review properly. Accept the article for reviewing only if you have sufficient time to do a proper review and submit within the time stipulated by the editors. If your review takes a longer time, there is no harm in communicating with the editors and seek a alternate deadline. Please return your review within two weeks. A possible delay should be communicated to the editors. In such conditions, the paper can then be allocated to another reviewer.

3. Check for Plagiarism/ fraud: If you suspect that an article is a substantial copy of another work or if you suspect the results to be untrue, please let the editor know, citing the previous work in as much detail as possible in case of plagiarism.

4. Confidentiality: An unpublished manuscript is a privileged document. Reviewer must see about confidentiality of patient’s/ subject’s information and patient’s /subject’s consent has been sought. Also, reviewer must himself/herself treat the manuscript as a confidential document. He/She must not show the manuscript to authors, must not use the data for personal work without the personal consent of the author. Reviewer also should not in any way reveal his/her identity to the author.

B. After accepting the article:

1. Check originality of idea: Is the observation made and reported in the manuscript something new or is it work that reproduces previously made observations? Does the article provide a new idea or contribute to medical education in a novel way?

2. Article format: Check whether the articles adhere to the format of JETHS based on the type of article. If the article is really good but is not laid out in the format described, then this must be conveyed to the editors.

3. Title: is title too obscure or declarative? Does it convey exactly what the article is about? Does it clearly describe the article?

4. Abstract: This is the most important part of the paper which will decide whether or not a potential reader chooses to read the full text .Are you able to get a clear picture of why the study was performed, the methodological details, the key findings, and the implications of the study from the abstract? Would you like to recommend any changes to the author(s)? Does the format match the requirements for the article type as stipulated by the journal?

5. Introduction: Does it describe the hypothesis and summarize relevant research? Does the introduction establish a connection between what is already known to something new which will be explored through this paper? Is the purpose of the study mentioned clearly by a research question or hypothesis?

6. Materials and Methods: Does the author accurately explain how the data was collected? Is the design suitable for answering the question posed? Is there sufficient information present for the reader to replicate the research? Is the sampling appropriate? Have the equipment and materials been adequately described? Does the article make it clear what type of data was recorded? Has the author been precise in describing measurements? Are there any gross statistical errors? If it is a questionnaire based study design has the questionnaire been validated? Is the ethical issue addressed?

7. Results: Has it been presented in a logical sequence? Are they consistent with the method & addressing the research question in the paper?Check the tables to see whether the legends given are clear. Whether values given are easy to understand and accurate? The information given in tables should not be repeated in the text. Whether appropriate graphics have been used?

8. Discussion / Conclusion: Are the claims in this section supported by the results, do they seem reasonable? Have the authors indicated how the results relate to expectations and to earlier research? Does the article support or contradict previous theories? Does the conclusion explain how the research has moved the body of scientific knowledge forward? Look for unnecessary conjecture or unfounded conclusions that are not based on the evidence presented? Is there any impact of the study on the current status of medical education? Are the limitations in the study discussed?

9. Acknowledgements: Are all the suitable persons involved in the study acknowledged?

10. Overall Evaluation of the paper: Is there any key message in the paper? Did you find any new knowledge being added to the existing one? Is the paper original? Is the paper well written? Is the paper of appropriate length as per the requirement of the journal?

11. Language: If an article is poorly written due to grammatical errors, then the same may be mentioned in the note to the editor.

How to submit your review to the editors

  1. Be polite: You have to complete a form supplied by the editors. Ensure that your comments are courteous and constructive and should not include any personal remarks.
  2. Explain your judgement: You should explain and support your judgment so that both editors and authors are able to fully understand the reasoning behind your comments.
  3. Identify the required revision: if you choose the option ‘requires revision’, then clearly explain the kind of revision that is required, and indicate to the editor whether or not you would be happy to review the revised article.
  4. Adhere to journal policies: Check the Aims and Scope of the journal to ensure that your comments are in accordance with journal policy.
  5. Number your comments: Be specific. Refer to line numbers in the paper or to exact regions where you wish changes to occur.
  6. Which option do you recommend?
    • Accept without revision
    • Minor revision then accept (please indicate revision needed)
    • Major revision required before further consideration (please indicate revision needed)
    • Reject
  7. Reviewers should submit the review in two parts:
    Part 1: This will be for the Editorial Office and will not be passed to the author(s).Your comments in this part should help Editorial Office to make a decision about the paper.
    Part 2: This will be for the authors. This part should include constructive feedback on how the paper can be improved if required.

Editorial Policy: Each paper will be sent to two to three reviewers. The editorial board will make a decision on the recommendations of the reviewers.

We hope you will enjoy the experience of being a reviewer for JETHS

Reviews for different article types

  1. Review Article: such articles should provide a reasoned survey and examination of a particular subject related to education technology. These can be submitted as a mini-review (less than 2,500 words, 3 figures, and 1 table) or a long review (not more than 6,000 words, 6 figures, and 3 tables). They should include critical assessment of the works cited, explanations of conflicts in the literature, and analysis of the field. The conclusion must discuss in detail the limitations of current knowledge, future directions to be pursued in research, and the overall importance of the topic in health sciences. Review articles should be structured and contain four sections: Abstract, introduction, topics (with headings and subheadings),and conclusions and outlook. Reviewers should note whether the abstract accurately summarizes the contents of the review. Does the introduction clearly state what the focus of the review will beware the facts reported in the review accurate? Does the Author use the most recent literature available to put together this review? Are the figures or tables included relevant to the review and enable the readers to better understand the manuscript? Are there further figures/tables that could be included? Do the conclusions and outlooks outline where further research can be done on the topic?
  2. Original article: Reviewers should consider the following questions: What is the overall aim of the research being presented and is this clearly stated? Are the aims of the manuscript and the results of the data clearly and concisely stated in the abstract? Does the introduction explain the research hypothesis clearly and cite other literature to provide evidence for their claims? Have the authors used appropriate statistical tools to analyse their data? If the analysis is incorrect, what should the Authors do to correct this? Do all the figures and tables help the reader better understand the manuscript? If not, which figures or tables should be removed and should anything be presented in their place? Is the methodology used presented in a clear and concise manner so that someone else can repeat the same experiments? Do the conclusions match the data being presented? Have the Authors discussed the implications of their research in the discussion? Are all abbreviations used explained? Does the Author use standard scientific abbreviations?
  3. Other Articles: All other articles should be reviewed as per the specifications laid down in the Manuscript Categories.