Reviewers’ Guidelines: International Journal of Medical Justice (IJMJ)
Official Publication of GLAFIMS ACADEMY
Version 1.0 | Dated 26 June 2025

1. Overview

The International Journal of Medical Justice (IJMJ) is a peer-reviewed, open access journal committed to publishing high-quality content related to the intersection of medicine, law, and justice. Manuscripts submitted undergo double-blind peer review by at least two independent reviewers.

We value your contribution as a reviewer. Your expertise directly impacts the quality, integrity, and credibility of scholarly communication.

2. Invitation to Review

Upon receiving an invitation:

·       Respond Promptly after reviewing the abstract and title.

·       If declining, suggest alternative qualified reviewers.

·       If accepting, please submit your review within 12 days.

·       Request an extension if needed to complete a comprehensive review.

3. Confidentiality

·       The peer review process at IJMJ is double-blind.

·       Do not share or discuss the manuscript with anyone.

·       Do not reveal your identity in comments or metadata.

·       All manuscripts are confidential documents.

4. Conflicts of Interest

You must declare any potential conflicts, such as:

·       Working at the same institution as the author(s).

·       Previous or ongoing collaboration with any of the authors.

·       Financial, personal, or academic interest in the outcome.

If any conflict is identified, kindly inform the editorial office immediately and decline the review.

5. Review Criteria and Focus Areas

Please evaluate the manuscript based on the following:

A. For Original Research Articles

1.     Novelty – Is the research original and relevant?

2.     Scope – Does the work align with IJMJ's thematic scope?

3.     Scientific Rigor – Are the methodology and analysis appropriate?

4.     Clarity – Is the paper clear, well-structured, and logical?

5.     Significance – Do the results contribute meaningfully to the field?

6.     References – Are sources up to date and relevant?

7.     Figures/Tables – Are visuals accurate and well-presented?

8.     Conclusions – Are they justified by the findings?

B. For Review Articles

1.     Comprehensiveness – Are all key aspects covered?

2.     Clarity and Organization – Is the article logically structured and easy to follow?

3.     Use of References – Are cited sources reliable and up to date?

6. Writing the Review Report

Structure your report using the following suggested format:

A. Summary Paragraph

·       State the manuscript’s aim.

·       Highlight major strengths and contributions.

B. Comments Section

·       Compulsory Revision Comments – Issues that must be addressed for the paper to proceed.

·       Minor Revision Comments – Suggestions that improve quality but are not critical.

·       Optional/General Comments – Additional suggestions or observations.

Refer directly to specific paragraphs or figures for clarity.

C. Ethical and Plagiarism Issues

·       Comment if ethical approval is missing or questionable.

·       Indicate if you suspect plagiarism with references or links.

D. Competing Interests

Include the declaration:

“I declare that I have no competing interests as a reviewer.”

E. Objective Evaluation (Scorecard)

Assign a score (0–10) reflecting the manuscript's quality:

·       >9–10: Accept as it is

·       >8–9: Minor revision

·       >7–8: Major revision

·       >5–7: Serious major revision

·       >3–5: Reject but may reconsider

·       0–3: Strongly reject

7. Ethical Standards & Plagiarism Policy

IJMJ adheres to the highest ethical standards. Please follow the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) guidelines while reviewing: https://publicationethics.org

IJMJ screens all manuscripts using plagiarism detection software. If you suspect plagiarism or data manipulation, report this immediately with supporting evidence.

8. Use of AI Tools

Reviewers are strictly prohibited from using AI tools or automated systems to generate or edit their review content. Reviews must reflect the reviewer’s own critical assessment and expertise.

9. Reviewer Responsibilities

·       Be objective, constructive, and professional in your review.

·       Avoid inappropriate or offensive language.

·       Do not ask authors to cite your work unless essential and justified.

·       Submit your IJMJ Reviewer Comments Form completely (see sample uploaded).

10. Editorial Decision

Your recommendation will inform the editorial decision. Final decisions include:

·       Accept as is

·       Accept with Minor Revisions (Authors get 10 days)

·       Major Revisions Needed (Authors get 15 days; may be re-evaluated)

·       Reject

All decisions must be justified with comments.

11. Reviewing Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (Using PRISMA 2020)

IJMJ adheres to the PRISMA 2020 (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines for evaluating Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses. Reviewers of such manuscripts are expected to assess the manuscript in accordance with the PRISMA 2020 Checklist, which can be accessed here:
🔗 PRISMA 2020 Checklist PDF

11.1 Key Aspects to Review

You are encouraged to evaluate whether the submission complies with the following core PRISMA domains:

A. Title & Abstract

·       Does the title identify the report as a systematic review or meta-analysis?

·       Does the abstract adhere to PRISMA Abstract Guidelines?

B. Introduction

·       Is the rationale for the review clear and justified?

·       Are the objectives or questions explicitly defined (PICO elements: Population, Intervention, Comparator, Outcome)?

C. Methods

·       Was a comprehensive literature search strategy described (databases, time frames, search terms)?

·       Are inclusion/exclusion criteria clearly stated?

·       Was a review protocol registered or published?

·       Was risk of bias assessed appropriately?

·       Was data extraction conducted in duplicate?

·       Are synthesis methods (meta-analysis/statistics) adequately described?

D. Results

·       Are the study selection and screening process presented (preferably with a PRISMA flow diagram)?

·       Are characteristics of included studies summarized?

·       Are risk of bias results reported?

·       Are synthesized results, subgroup analyses, or heterogeneity clearly explained?

E. Discussion

·       Are the main findings interpreted in light of limitations and quality of evidence?

·       Are implications for research and practice discussed appropriately?

F. Transparency & Ethics

·       Is funding and conflict of interest disclosure provided?

·       Are data, code, and other supplementary materials referenced or made available?

11.2 Reviewer Responsibilities for PRISMA-Based Submissions

·       Evaluate the manuscript against the 27-item PRISMA 2020 Checklist.

·       If key items are missing or incomplete, list them clearly in the Compulsory Revision Comments.

·       Recommend inclusion of the PRISMA Checklist as a supplementary file.

·       Encourage use of PRISMA-compliant figures and tables (especially the Flow Diagram).

11.3 Special Considerations

·       The use of tools such as AMSTAR 2, GRADE, or ROBIS is optional but encouraged when assessing methodological quality.

·       Be alert to redundancy or duplicate publication.

·       Pay attention to reproducibility, particularly the clarity of methods for literature searches and data synthesis.

Reminder: All assessments must be backed by specific and constructive feedback. Avoid suggesting major revision or rejection based solely on formatting. Focus on scientific integrity, transparency, and adherence to reporting standards.

This addition ensures that IJMJ reviewers evaluating systematic reviews and meta-analyses have a structured, internationally accepted framework, ensuring high-quality, transparent, and reproducible scholarship.

12. Additional Notes

·       Initial editorial screening may lead to desk rejection within 2 weeks.

·       The average decision timeline for peer-reviewed manuscripts is 6 weeks.

13. Support and Resources

For complete policies and updates, please refer to:
🔗 https://www.ijmj.net/policies

For further assistance, contact the editorial office at:
✉️ editor@ijmj.net

Thank you for contributing your expertise to the International Journal of Medical Justice. Your insights help uphold the quality and integrity of our journal.

Prepared by: Editorial Office, IJMJ | GLAFIMS ACADEMY
Version: 1.0 (June 2025)

Would you like this as a formatted PDF or editable Word document for distribution?

Correspondence:

Editor-in-Chief/Editor

International Journal of Medical Justice

Head office Address: G-1, Ground Floor, City Center, Medical Road, Aligarh 202002 India    

E-Mail: editor@ijmj.net  Journal Web:  https://journal.ijmj.net Publisher:              www.glafims.org