Peer review is a process of subjecting research methods and findings to the scrutiny of other experts in the same field. It is one of the most important means for us to judge whether a manuscript submitted is worthwhile to publish or not, and prevent dissemination of irrelevant findings and unacceptable views. Chinese Medical Sciences Journal relies on peer reviewers to provide clear, unbiased, timely, and respectful comments to our editorial team to select high quality manuscripts with significant relevance for the journal.  A constructive peer review

· helps authors improve the quality of their manuscripts and therefore the quality of the scientific record.

· helps editors decide whether or not to publish a submitted manuscript, and how the manuscripts may be improved.

· helps reviewers stay well informed in their areas of special interest, and fulfills a crucial role in the academic field.

Perform a peer review

  1. Summarize the article in a short paragraph. This shows the editor that you have read and understood the manuscript.

  2. Giving your overall opinion and general observation of the article is essential.

  3. Be courteous and constructive, and not include any personal remarks or details such as your name.

  4. Explain and support your judgement so that both editors and authors are able to fully understand the reasoning behind your comments.

  5. If you suspect plagiarism or fraud, or have other ethical concerns, please raise your suspicion for the editor, and provide as much detail as possible.

  6. Provide insight into any deficiencies, and give specific comments and suggestions if necessary. The aspects may include but not be limited to language expression, title, abstract, method, figure and tables, statistical errors, problems in citation or references.

  7. State your main impressions of the article, including whether it is novel and interesting, whether it has a sufficient impact and adds to the knowledge base.

  8. Make a recommendation for publication from the following four categories:

•   Accept for publication without revision
•   Reject, explain the reason in report
•   Accept with minor revision
•   Re-evaluate after major revision (please indicate whether you would be available to review the revised article)

Peer review ethics

Objective and fair
Reviews should be objective, constructive, and courteous. Peer review comments are suggested to acknowledge the positive aspects of the material under review, identify the negative aspects constructively, and indicate the necessary improvements to help authors resolve weaknesses in their work. Do not use derogatory statements to authors. 

Avoid prejudice
Reviewers should evaluate papers solely on the base of scientific merit, originality, quality of writing, etc. They should not judge manuscripts negatively because of different academic views, or personal preferences, nor should they discriminate against authors based on the location, level of their institution, their position, seniority, gender, race, etc.

Response timely
Please return the review within the time period specified by the editorial office. If you are busy and not able to complete review by due date, please notify the editorial office of a delay, or decline the invitation.  

Conflict of interests
If a reviewer has any professional, financial, or his/her affiliation that may be perceived as a conflict of interests in reviewing the manuscript, he/she should not accept the invitation for review. We ask reviewers to notify the editorial office for any potential conflicting interests that may affect to judge a manuscript impartially. 

Confidentiality
The submitted manuscript is a privileged communication and must be treated as a confidential document. Do not share contents of the manuscript with anyone. If reviewer makes a copy of the manuscript or download the manuscript, be sure to destroy it after completing the review. Reviewers should not make personal or professional use of the content or data in the manuscript, or take data or ideas for their own preemptive publication.

Anonymously review
The review process is conducted anonymously. The journal never reveals identity of reviewers to the author; reviewers should not contact authors, and not identify themselves in the comments as well.