Reviewers Guidelines

Guidelines for Peer Reviewers
Any manuscript submitted to the Yenagoa Medical Journal should not have been published or under consideration for publication in any other Journal.

The Yenagoa Medical Journal seldomly rejects manuscripts as it works with authors to build skills in writing for publication. However, the manuscript should be rejected if it is not technically sound, article type is not easily discernible or not representative of the methodology used, the objective set out was not met, and if it lacks current relevance.

Reviewers should check that:

1. The subject of the manuscript has current relevance and the text is an original expression of the author(s).
2. Assertions made are adequately referenced.
3. Any clause, sentence, table/figure/illustration lifted from a published article is cited.
4. There are sufficient and comprehensible details of the methods outlined by the author(s).
5. The data analysis is satisfactory.
6. The discussion is elaborate, robust, based on actual facts and figures from the results, and effectively compared with similar studies.
7. The conclusion is supported by the data discussed in the manuscript.
8. The references are relevant and adequately cited using the American Medical Association (AMA) style of Vancouver referencing system (References may be suggested if need be).

Reviewer comments:

1. Reviewer comments should address each of the above.
2. If any unethical practice is suspected in the manuscript, please write a report with proof/citations/web links.
3. Peer-reviewers are expected to suggest to the authors how best their manuscripts can be strengthened to make them acceptable.
4. Reviewer comments should be sufficiently informative to aid editorial decision.

Please refer to the COPE guidelines on “Ethical guidelines for peer reviewers” for more details.

Click here to download the COPE guidelines (Ethical guidelines for peer reviewers) here.