Reviewer Guidelines

SLBMJ strictly follows the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers. Reviewers play a vital role in maintaining the scientific quality, ethical integrity, and academic credibility of the journal.

Ethical Responsibilities and Confidentiality

  • All manuscripts submitted to SLBMJ are treated as the intellectual property of the authors. Any misuse, reproduction, or disclosure of unpublished material is considered unethical and unlawful.
  • Reviewers must maintain strict confidentiality and must not use any part of the manuscript for personal research, future publications, or professional activities.
  • Author identities and affiliations must remain confidential. Reviewers are strictly prohibited from contacting authors directly under any circumstances.
  • Discussion of manuscript content with subject experts or colleagues is permitted only after informing the Editor, and confidentiality must be preserved at all times.

Conflict of Interest and Review Timelines

  • If a reviewer is unable to evaluate a manuscript impartially due to a conflict of interest or any other reason, the manuscript should be returned to the Editor within seven (07) working days, along with a clear explanation.
  • Once a reviewer accepts the review assignment, a comprehensive review should be completed within two (02) weeks. If additional time is required, the reviewer must inform the Editor in advance.

Role of the Reviewer

  • The final decision regarding acceptance, revision, or rejection of a manuscript rests solely with the Editor.
  • Reviewers should not state acceptance or rejection decisions in comments intended for authors. Confidential recommendations may be communicated separately to the Editor, clearly referencing the manuscript ID.

Criteria for Manuscript Evaluation

Reviewers are requested to assess manuscripts based on the following criteria:

  • Scientific reliability and professional depth of knowledge
  • Relevance of the research question to the journal’s scope of research areas
  • Originality and contribution to existing knowledge
  • Adequacy and clarity of the abstract and appropriateness of keywords
  • Suitability of the research design and methodology, including statistical validity
  • Clear description of inclusion and exclusion criteria
  • Relevance, credibility, and presentation of results
  • Sound interpretation of data and justification of conclusions
  • Relevance and depth of the discussion in supporting the authors’ claims
  • Accuracy, relevance, and currency of references, including identification of major omissions
  • Clarity, relevance, and proper labeling of tables and figures
  • Compliance with ethical standards in research

Professional Conduct and Constructive Feedback

  • Reviews must be objective, unbiased, and independent of the authors’ geographical location or institutional affiliation.
  • A fair evaluation of the strengths and weaknesses of the manuscript is essential. Constructive criticism supported by clear reasoning and references, where appropriate, is strongly encouraged.
  • Reviewers should not recommend citation of their own work solely to increase personal citation counts. References may be suggested only when academically relevant.
  • Discourteous, dismissive, or abrasive language must be avoided. All comments should be professional, respectful, and well-documented.
  • While reviewers are not required to correct grammatical or language errors, any assistance in improving clarity and readability is appreciated.
  • If additional insights arise after submission of the review report, reviewers may communicate them to the Editor via email.

Editorial Discretion

The Editor values reviewers’ recommendations; however, editorial decisions are based on multiple expert evaluations and journal policies. Reviewers should not expect every recommendation to be reflected in the final decision.