Qanun Medika - Medical Journal Faculty of Medicine Muhammadiyah Surabaya is committed to maintaining a rigorous, transparent, fair, and ethical peer-review process to ensure the quality and integrity of published medical and health-science research. Reviewers play an essential role in evaluating the scientific merit, methodological validity, originality, relevance, and ethical acceptability of submitted manuscripts. These guidelines are informed by the COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers and the COPE Core Practices. The following provisions adapt these ethical principles to the journal's editorial and peer-review procedures.
1. Responsibilities and Qualifications of Reviewers
Reviewers should accept manuscript review invitations only when they have appropriate expertise in the subject area and can provide a competent, impartial, and constructive assessment. Reviewers should evaluate manuscripts within their professional and academic competence and disclose any limitations that may affect their ability to assess particular methods, statistical analyses, or scientific interpretations.
Reviewers who consider themselves unqualified to assess a manuscript or unable to complete the review within the required timeframe should promptly inform the editor and decline the invitation where appropriate. Reviewers should not accept assignments solely to delay publication, obstruct competing research, or obtain access to unpublished scientific information. These responsibilities follow the COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers, which address reviewer competence, impartiality, and responsible participation in peer review.
2. Confidentiality of Manuscripts
All manuscripts submitted to Qanun Medika, including supplementary files, datasets, figures, tables, and editorial correspondence, must be treated as confidential documents. Reviewers must not disclose manuscript content, distribute unpublished materials, or discuss the submission with unauthorized individuals. Confidential information obtained during peer review must not be used for personal, professional, academic, or commercial advantage.
Reviewers must not contact authors directly about a manuscript unless the editor has explicitly authorized such communication. Manuscripts must not be shared with colleagues, students, or other individuals without prior editorial permission. These requirements are consistent with the confidentiality principles established in the COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers, which emphasize the protection of unpublished work and the integrity of the peer-review process.
Reviewers must also protect manuscript confidentiality when using digital platforms, online services, or artificial intelligence tools. Manuscript content should not be uploaded to public or third-party AI systems where confidentiality, privacy, or intellectual property may be compromised. Any external processing of manuscript material must comply with the journal's applicable policies and editorial authorization requirements.
3. Objectivity, Fairness, and Impartiality
Reviewers must evaluate manuscripts objectively and base their assessments on scientific merit, methodological rigor, originality, relevance, and ethical acceptability. Personal opinions, professional disagreements, institutional affiliations, nationality, ethnicity, gender, religion, or other characteristics unrelated to the scientific quality of the work must not influence the review.
Reviewer comments should be supported by clear reasoning, relevant evidence, and appropriate scientific references. Criticism should focus on the manuscript rather than the authors personally. Reviewers must avoid discriminatory language, hostile remarks, personal attacks, and unsupported allegations. These principles are consistent with the COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers, which emphasize objective assessment, constructive criticism, and the avoidance of bias.
Reviewers should not use the review process to promote their own research unfairly, demand unnecessary citations to their publications, or influence authors to cite particular works without a legitimate scholarly justification. Recommendations for additional references should be relevant, necessary, and intended to improve the manuscript's scientific quality.
4. Conflicts of Interest
Reviewers must disclose any actual, potential, or perceived conflict of interest that could affect their impartiality. Conflicts may arise from financial interests, institutional relationships, professional collaborations, personal relationships, academic competition, intellectual commitments, or other circumstances involving the authors, institutions, or research discussed in the manuscript.
If a reviewer identifies a conflict of interest, the reviewer should inform the editor promptly. The editor will determine whether the reviewer may continue the assessment or whether an alternative reviewer should be appointed. Reviewers should decline an invitation when the circumstances are likely to prevent a fair and independent evaluation. These expectations are supported by the COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers and the COPE Core Practices, which address competing interests and the integrity of editorial processes.
5. Timeliness and Commitment to the Review Process
Reviewers are expected to respond to review invitations promptly and submit their reports within the deadline established by the editorial office. Timely peer review helps the journal maintain an efficient publication process while allowing authors to receive appropriate feedback on their research.
If reviewers require additional time or encounter circumstances that prevent them from completing the review, they should notify the editor as early as possible. Reviewers who cannot undertake or complete an assignment should inform the editorial office promptly so that an alternative reviewer can be considered. These expectations reflect the recommendations in the COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers concerning reviewer responsibilities and timeliness.
6. Scientific and Methodological Evaluation
Reviewers should assess the scientific quality and validity of each manuscript according to its research objectives, study design, methodology, findings, and intended contribution to medical or health-science knowledge. The review should identify both the strengths of the research and any limitations that affect the reliability, interpretation, or applicability of its findings.
The evaluation should consider whether the research question is clearly stated, the literature review is appropriate, the methodology is suitable, the data analysis is valid, and the conclusions are supported by the reported results. Reviewers should also assess whether the manuscript provides sufficient methodological detail for readers to understand the research and, where appropriate, reproduce the procedures. This approach is consistent with the principles of responsible peer review described in the COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers.
Reviewers should evaluate the relevance and accuracy of references, the clarity of tables and figures, the consistency of numerical results, and the appropriate interpretation of statistical analyses. Major methodological weaknesses should be distinguished from minor editorial issues, and recommendations should explain how identified problems may be addressed.
7. Ethical Assessment of Medical and Health-Science Research
For manuscripts involving human participants, patient records, biological materials, or other ethically sensitive research activities, reviewers should assess whether the manuscript adequately reports applicable research ethics approval, informed consent, participant confidentiality, and protections for vulnerable populations. Reviewers should notify the editor if relevant ethical safeguards appear absent, unclear, or inconsistent with the research described.
For clinical studies and clinical trials, reviewers should consider whether the research design, participant selection, outcome measures, trial registration where applicable, statistical methods, and reporting of findings are sufficiently transparent. Reviewers should also consider whether the manuscript follows appropriate reporting guidelines for its study design, such as CONSORT for randomized trials, STROBE for observational studies, PRISMA for systematic reviews, or CARE for case reports, where applicable.
Reviewers should raise concerns about possible ethical deficiencies confidentially with the editor rather than independently investigating or publicly accusing the authors. These responsibilities are consistent with the COPE Core Practices, particularly the principles concerning ethical oversight, research integrity, and the responsible handling of publication ethics concerns.
8. Research Integrity and Suspected Misconduct
Reviewers should remain alert to potential research-integrity concerns, including plagiarism, duplicate or redundant publication, inappropriate text or image manipulation, fabricated or falsified data, undisclosed conflicts of interest, questionable authorship practices, and possible breaches of research ethics.
If a reviewer identifies a credible concern, the reviewer should inform the editor confidentially and provide relevant details or supporting evidence where possible. Reviewers should not independently investigate suspected misconduct, contact authors to make accusations, or disclose allegations publicly. The editor is responsible for assessing the concern and determining appropriate follow-up procedures.
This approach follows the COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers and the COPE Core Practices, which provide guidance on identifying and appropriately handling concerns related to publication ethics and research integrity.
9. Constructive Feedback and Reviewer Reports
Reviewer reports should provide clear, specific, balanced, and constructive feedback that helps authors improve their manuscripts. Reviewers should explain the scientific or methodological basis of their concerns and provide practical recommendations where possible. Comments should be organized so that authors can distinguish major issues affecting scientific validity from minor issues involving clarity, terminology, formatting, or presentation.
Reviewers should use professional language and avoid insulting, discriminatory, or unnecessarily aggressive statements. Feedback should be directed toward improving the manuscript rather than criticizing the authors personally. These practices reflect the COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers, which emphasize fair, respectful, and constructive assessment.
Comments intended for the authors should be separated from confidential comments intended for the editor. Confidential comments may identify editorial concerns, potential conflicts of interest, or suspected ethical issues. However, reviewers should ensure that their confidential recommendations do not contradict the substantive assessment presented to the authors.
10. Editorial Recommendations
Reviewers should provide a clear recommendation based on the manuscript's scientific quality, originality, methodological validity, relevance to the journal, ethical acceptability, and the extent of revision required. Reviewer recommendations assist the editor in reaching an informed decision, but the final editorial decision remains the responsibility of the editor.
Qanun Medika may use the following recommendation categories within its editorial workflow:
Accept: The manuscript is suitable for publication without substantive revision, subject to final editorial checks.
Minor Revision: The manuscript may be suitable for publication after limited corrections, clarifications, or improvements.
Major Revision: Substantial revisions, additional explanations, or further analysis are required before the manuscript can be reconsidered.
Reject: The manuscript has fundamental scientific, methodological, ethical, or relevance-related deficiencies that prevent publication or cannot reasonably be resolved through revision.
These recommendation categories are journal-specific editorial procedures rather than verbatim COPE requirements. Reviewers should support their recommendations with clear explanations and ensure that their comments are consistent with the recommendation provided to the editor.
11. Use of Artificial Intelligence and External Assistance
Reviewers are personally responsible for the accuracy, integrity, and confidentiality of their review reports. They must not delegate manuscript evaluation to another person without prior authorization from the editor. Any permitted assistance, including involvement by a trainee or colleague, should be disclosed to the editorial office where appropriate.
Reviewers must ensure that any use of artificial intelligence or external digital tools complies with the journal's applicable policies and does not compromise manuscript confidentiality, participant privacy, intellectual property, or the integrity of the review. AI-generated content, references, and factual claims must be checked carefully, and reviewers must retain responsibility for the final report.
Where the journal's policy does not clearly address a proposed use of AI or an external service, reviewers should consult the editor before submitting confidential manuscript content to that service. Reviewers should also follow the confidentiality and accountability principles outlined in the COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers.
12. Responsibilities After Peer Review
Reviewers should remain available to clarify their assessments when reasonably requested by the editor. Where possible, reviewers may be invited to assess revised manuscripts to determine whether the authors have adequately addressed the previous comments.
If reviewers become aware of new information that materially affects their original assessment, they should inform the editor. The confidentiality of the manuscript and the review process must be maintained after the review has been completed. These expectations are consistent with the COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers.
13. Reviewer Checklist
Before submitting a review, reviewers should ensure that they have considered the following points, where applicable:
1. The manuscript falls within my area of expertise, and I can provide an impartial assessment.
2. I have disclosed any relevant actual, potential, or perceived conflicts of interest.
3. I have maintained the confidentiality of the manuscript and all associated materials.
4. I have assessed the research objectives, methodology, statistical analysis, results, discussion, conclusions, and limitations.
5. I have considered applicable research ethics approval, informed consent, participant privacy, and clinical trial registration requirements.
6. I have reported suspected research-integrity or publication ethics concerns confidentially to the editor.
7. My comments are specific, professional, constructive, and supported by appropriate reasoning.
8. My recommendation is consistent with the assessment and comments provided.
9. I have completed the review within the agreed deadline or informed the editor of any delay.
14. Editorial Responsibilities and Reviewer Protection
The editorial team of Qanun Medika is responsible for managing the peer-review process fairly, consistently, and confidentially. Editors should consider reviewer reports alongside the manuscript's scientific quality, ethical acceptability, relevance, and compliance with the journal's policies. The final decision should be based on scholarly and ethical considerations rather than inappropriate institutional, financial, or personal influence.
The journal should protect reviewer identities in accordance with its declared peer-review model and maintain transparent procedures for handling conflicts of interest, complaints, appeals, and publication ethics concerns. These principles are consistent with the COPE Core Practices and the COPE Short Guide to Ethical Editing for New Editors.
15. Ethical Framework and Official References
The Reviewer Guidelines of Qanun Medika are informed by the following official COPE resources, which provide guidance on ethical peer review, editorial responsibility, and publication integrity:
1. Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers. Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), Version 2, September 2017. Available at: https://publicationethics.org/files/cope-ethical-guidelines-peer-reviewers-v2_0.pdf
2. COPE Core Practices. Committee on Publication Ethics. Available at: https://publicationethics.org/core-practices
3. A Short Guide to Ethical Editing for New Editors. Committee on Publication Ethics. Available at: COPE Short Guide to Ethical Editing for New Editors
4. Official COPE Website. Committee on Publication Ethics. Available at: https://publicationethics.org/
16. Policy Review and Implementation
Qanun Medika is encouraged to review these Reviewer Guidelines periodically to ensure that they remain consistent with current editorial practices, applicable research ethics requirements, and relevant publication ethics guidance. Any amendments should be approved by the journal's editorial management and communicated through the official journal website where appropriate.
This document is a proposed journal policy informed by COPE guidance and adapted for Qanun Medika. It is not an official COPE publication and does not imply that the journal is a COPE member. The journal should formally approve the document before adopting it as an official editorial policy.