Reviewer Guidelines

A Practical Guide for Peer Reviewers of the ARD Journal
 
Open Peer Review Model
 
Document:  Reviewer Guidelines
 
Journal:  ARD Medical Journal
 
Issuing Body:  ARD Editorial Board, UPTH Chapter
 
Review Model:  Open Peer Review — identities of authors and reviewers are mutually disclosed
 
Version:  1.0
 
A Message from the Editorial Board
 
On behalf of the ARD Medical Journal Editorial Board, we thank you for your willingness to contribute your time, expertise, and professional judgment to the peer review process. Peer review is the foundation upon which the credibility of scientific publication rests, and reviewers are its most essential participants.
 
The ARD Medical Journal is committed to publishing high-quality, rigorous, and clinically relevant research produced by and for the community of resident doctors, trainees, and health professionals in Nigeria. Your review directly shapes the quality of work that reaches our readers and, ultimately, influences clinical practice and health outcomes.
 
These guidelines are designed to equip you with everything you need to conduct a thorough, fair, and constructive review. Please read them carefully before beginning your review. If you have any questions at any stage, do not hesitate to contact the Editorial Secretary or your assigned Section Editor.
 
1. The Open Peer Review Model
 
1.1 What Open Peer Review Means
 
The ARD Medical Journal operates under an Open Peer Review (OPR) model. This means that:
 
• Your identity as a reviewer is disclosed to the author(s) of the manuscript you are reviewing;
 
• The author's identity is disclosed to you;
 
• Your review report may, at the discretion of the Editorial Board and with your consent, be published alongside the final accepted article.
 
1.2 Why We Use Open Peer Review
 
The Editorial Board has adopted OPR because:
 
• It promotes accountability — reviewers who are identified tend to provide more thorough, balanced, and professionally respectful critiques;
 
• It supports transparency — authors understand who has evaluated their work, reducing the perception of arbitrary decisions;
 
• It fosters collegiality — the resident doctor community benefits from a culture of named, constructive scholarly dialogue;
 
• It reduces the risk of hostile, perfunctory, or malicious reviews.
 
Important: By accepting a review invitation from the ARD Medical Journal, you consent to the disclosure of your identity to the author(s) and to the possible publication of your review report. If you have a genuine professional reason for requesting anonymity in a specific case, please contact the Section Editor before beginning your review.
 
1.3 Professionalism in an Open Setting
 
Open peer review requires the same standards of rigour as any review model  but demands an additional layer of professionalism. Because your identity is known, your review becomes part of your professional record. The ARD Editorial Board expects all reviews to reflect:
 
• Intellectual honesty and scientific rigour;
 
• Respect for the author's effort and the integrity of the scientific process;
 
• Language that is professional, constructive, and free from personal commentary;
 
• Fairness to authors at all career stages, including resident doctors submitting their first research work.
 
2. Accepting or Declining a Review Invitation
 
2.1 Responding to the Invitation
 
When you receive a review invitation from the ARD Medical Journal, you will be provided with the manuscript title, abstract, and the name(s) of the author(s). Please use this information to assess whether you are able and willing to undertake the review before accepting.
 
You should accept the invitation if:
 
• You have relevant subject matter expertise in the topic of the manuscript;
 
• You are able to complete the review within the stated deadline (21 calendar days);
 
• You have no disqualifying conflict of interest with the author(s) or the subject matter (see Section 3);
 
• You are committed to providing a thorough and fair assessment.
 
2.2 When to Decline
 
You should decline the invitation if:
 
• You do not have sufficient expertise in the subject area to evaluate the manuscript fairly;
 
• You cannot meet the review deadline;
 
• You have a conflict of interest that would compromise your objectivity (see Section 3);
 
• You are currently reviewing an excessive number of manuscripts and cannot give this one adequate attention.
 
If you are declining: Please do so promptly — within five (5) calendar days of receiving the invitation. Where possible, suggest the names of one or two colleagues with relevant expertise who may be willing to review. This helps the Editorial Board maintain timely review turnaround.
 
2.3 Suggesting Alternative Reviewers
 
When declining, you are encouraged (though not obliged) to suggest alternative reviewers. Please provide the suggested reviewer's full name, institutional affiliation, and email address, and confirm that you have no reason to believe they have a conflict of interest with the manuscript. The Editorial Board will exercise independent judgment in whether to approach suggested reviewers.
 
3. Conflicts of Interest
 
3.1 Definition
 
A conflict of interest (COI) exists when your relationship with an author or with the subject matter of the manuscript could or could reasonably be perceived to  compromise the objectivity or impartiality of your review.
 
3.2 Circumstances Requiring Disclosure or Recusal
 
You must disclose a potential conflict of interest and may be asked to recuse yourself if:
 
• You are a current or recent (within three years) co-author, supervisor, or supervisee of any named author;
 
• You have a close personal relationship (family, romantic, or strong friendship) with any named author;
 
• You are employed at the same institution as the primary author, where the subject matter directly involves that institution;
 
• You have a direct financial interest in the findings, methods, or conclusions of the manuscript;
 
• You have a competitive or adversarial relationship with any named author that could bias your assessment;
 
• You have publicly stated a strong prior position positive or negative on the specific research or research group under review.
 
3.3 How to Disclose
 
If you identify a potential conflict of interest after accepting a review invitation, contact the Section Editor immediately. If the conflict is minor and does not impair your objectivity, the Section Editor may permit you to continue with disclosure on record. If the conflict is material, you will be asked to withdraw from the review.
 
Disclosure of a conflict of interest is not an admission of wrongdoing. It is a professional obligation that protects both the integrity of the review process and your own professional standing.
 
Under the OPR model: Because author identities are known to you, conflicts of interest may be easier to identify than in a blinded model. This is one of the transparency benefits of OPR. If, upon seeing the author names, you recognise a conflict, please notify the Section Editor before proceeding.
 
4. Confidentiality
 
4.1 Manuscript Content is Confidential
 
The manuscript you are reviewing is an unpublished work shared with you in confidence for the sole purpose of peer review. You must not:
 
• Share, circulate, or discuss the manuscript content with any person outside the review process without the explicit consent of the Editorial Board;
 
• Cite, quote, or reference the manuscript in your own work prior to its publication;
 
• Use the data, methods, or ideas in the manuscript for your own research without the author's permission;
 
• Post, publish, or distribute any portion of the manuscript in any format.
 
4.2 Confidentiality After Review
 
Your confidentiality obligations with respect to manuscript content continue after you have completed your review and after the editorial process has concluded regardless of whether the manuscript is ultimately published or rejected.
 
4.3 Colleague Assistance
 
You must conduct your review independently. If you wish to consult a colleague on a specific technical point, you must first obtain permission from the Section Editor. If permission is granted, the colleague's name must be disclosed to the Section Editor and the colleague must also agree to be bound by the same confidentiality obligations. The review report must remain your own work.
 
Note: Under the OPR model, the disclosure of your identity to the author is an express, consented feature of the model and does not constitute a breach of confidentiality.
 
5. How to Conduct Your Review
 
5.1 First Read  Overview and Orientation
 
Begin with a complete, uninterrupted read of the manuscript. Do not take detailed notes on this first pass. Instead, focus on:
 
• What is the main research question or clinical problem being addressed?
 
• What methodology was used to address it?
 
• What are the principal findings and conclusions?
 
• What is the overall impression of quality, clarity, and significance?
 
After the first read, you will have an overall sense of whether the manuscript makes a meaningful contribution and whether it warrants detailed evaluation. If you believe at this stage that the manuscript has fundamental and irremediable flaws — for example, a research question that is entirely outside the scope of the Journal, or data that are plainly incomprehensible — you may contact the Section Editor to discuss whether to proceed.
 
5.2  Second Read Detailed Critical Evaluation
 
The second read should be systematic and critical. Work through the manuscript section by section, using the criteria in Section 6 of these Guidelines. Take detailed notes as you read, recording:
 
• Specific concerns, with the page number and line reference;
 
• Questions requiring clarification from the author;
 
• Positive observations about the work's strengths;
 
• Suggestions for improving clarity, structure, or analysis.
 
5.3  Evaluating Specific Manuscript Sections
 
Title and Abstract
 
• Does the title accurately and concisely reflect the content of the study?
 
• Does the abstract provide a complete, accurate summary of the study's background, methods, results, and conclusions?
 
• Are the key findings prominently stated in the abstract?
 
Introduction
 
• Does the introduction clearly identify the research gap or clinical problem being addressed?
 
• Is the existing literature cited accurately and sufficiently?
 
• Is the research question or objective clearly and specifically stated?
 
• Is the rationale for the study compelling?
 
Methods
 
• Is the study design appropriate for the research question?
 
• Is the population, setting, and sample adequately described?
 
• Are inclusion and exclusion criteria clearly defined?
 
• Is the sample size justified (e.g., with a power calculation)?
 
• Are the data collection methods and instruments described in sufficient detail for replication?
 
• Is the statistical analysis appropriate for the data type and study design?
 
• Are ethical approval and informed consent clearly reported?
 
• Are potential sources of bias identified and addressed?
 
Results
 
• Are all pre-specified objectives addressed by the results?
 
• Are the results presented clearly, without duplication between text, tables, and figures?
 
• Are tables and figures clearly labelled, appropriately designed, and accurately described?
 
• Is the statistical presentation correct (e.g., appropriate confidence intervals, p-values, effect sizes)?
 
• Are missing data or data limitations acknowledged?
 
Discussion
 
• Are the main findings summarised accurately and without overstatement?
 
• Are the findings interpreted in the context of existing literature?
 
• Are alternative explanations for the findings considered?
 
• Are the limitations of the study honestly and specifically acknowledged?
 
• Are the clinical implications of the findings clearly articulated and appropriately qualified?
 
• Are the conclusions directly supported by the data and free from speculation?
 
References
 
• Are all citations accurate, relevant, and formatted in accordance with the Journal's referencing style?
 
• Is there an appropriate balance between recent and seminal literature?
 
• Are self-citations excessive or unjustified?
 
Language, Style, and Presentation
 
• Is the manuscript written in clear, grammatically correct English?
 
• Is the level of technical language appropriate for the Journal's readership?
 
• Is the manuscript within the word limit for its category?
 
• Are ethical disclosures (conflict of interest, funding, ethics approval) included and complete?
 
6. Evaluation Criteria
 

Criterion

What to Assess

Originality

Does the manuscript make a genuine contribution to medical knowledge? Does it address a question not already comprehensively answered in the literature? (Note: replication studies and negative results can be original and publishable.)

Scientific Soundness

Is the methodology robust, reproducible, and appropriate for the research question? Are the statistical analyses correctly applied and interpreted?

Clinical Relevance

Is the research relevant to clinical practice, health systems, or medical education in Nigeria or the broader health context? Does it address a meaningful problem?

Validity of Conclusions

Are the conclusions directly and fully supported by the data? Are claims qualified appropriately? Is there overstatement or speculation presented as finding?

Ethics Compliance

Is there evidence of proper ethics approval, informed consent, and patient confidentiality? Are all required disclosures present?

Clarity and Organisation

Is the manuscript well-structured, clearly written, and logically organised? Is the argument easy to follow?

Referencing

Are citations accurate, relevant, and properly formatted? Is the literature reviewed adequately and without significant gaps?

Scope and Length

Is the manuscript appropriate in scope and length for its manuscript category? Is there unnecessary repetition or padding?
 
7. Writing Your Review Report
 
7.1 Structure of the Review Report
 
Your review report should be clearly structured and consist of the following components:
 

Component

What to Include

Summary

A brief (3–5 sentence) neutral summary of the manuscript's aims, methods, and main findings. This demonstrates to the author and editor that you have read and understood the work.

Major Comments

Significant concerns that must be addressed before the manuscript can be considered for publication. These may relate to methodology, data interpretation, missing information, ethical concerns, or logical inconsistencies. Number each comment for ease of reference.

Minor Comments

Smaller issues that should be corrected but which alone would not prevent publication. These may include typographical errors, unclear phrasing, reference formatting, and presentational issues. Number each comment.

Overall Recommendation

Your overall recommendation: Accept / Minor Revision / Major Revision / Reject with Invitation to Resubmit / Reject. See Section 8 for guidance on each decision.

Confidential Comments to Editor (optional)

Comments intended only for the Editor-in-Chief or Section Editor — for example, concerns about possible misconduct, undisclosed conflicts, or matters requiring editorial investigation. These are not shared with the author.
 
7.2 Tone and Language
 
The ARD Medical Journal's OPR model requires a high standard of professional communication. Please observe the following:
 
• Write in clear, precise, academic English;
 
• Be specific: reference the page, paragraph, line, or figure to which each comment applies;
 
• Distinguish clearly between mandatory revisions (required for publication) and suggestions (optional improvements)  use phrases such as 'The authors must...' versus 'The authors may wish to consider...';
 
• Acknowledge the strengths of the manuscript — a good review is balanced, not exclusively critical;
 
• Avoid personal criticism of the authors, dismissive language, or commentary on the authors' professional standing;
 
• Do not use language that reveals frustration, impatience, or condescension;
 
• Avoid vague comments such as 'This is not well written'  be specific about what is unclear and where.
 
Remember: In the OPR model, your review is addressed to the author by name, and may be read by the wider scientific community. Write as you would wish to be written to in a collegial, professional dialogue.
 
7.3 What to Avoid
 
The following are not acceptable in a peer review report submitted to the ARD Medical Journal:
 
• Recommending rejection purely on the basis of a topic you personally find unimportant;
 
• Requesting large amounts of new data, experiments, or analyses that go significantly beyond the original scope of the study;
 
• Insisting the authors cite your own work without genuine scientific justification;
 
• Making statements that could identify your personal or institutional interests;
 
• Providing a recommendation (accept or reject) without substantive justification;
 
• Copying any portion of the manuscript into the review report without attribution.
 
7.4  Use of Artificial Intelligence
 
You must not use artificial intelligence language tools (including large language models) to generate, substantially draft, or extensively paraphrase any part of your review report. Your review must represent your own independent intellectual assessment. The use of AI tools for grammar checking or language polishing is permitted, provided the intellectual substance of the review remains entirely yours. Any use of AI assistance must be disclosed to the Section Editor.
 
8. Recommendations — A Guide to Each Decision
 
After completing your review, you will select one of the following recommendations. This section provides guidance on the circumstances that support each decision.
 
ACCEPT
 
Recommend Accept when: the manuscript is of high quality with no substantive concerns; any remaining issues are minor typographical or presentational matters that can be corrected at proof stage. True acceptance without any revision is relatively uncommon.
 
MINOR REVISION
 
Recommend Minor Revision when: the manuscript is fundamentally sound but requires limited, specific, and clearly addressable corrections — such as clarifying a methodological description, updating a reference, correcting a statistical presentation, or improving the clarity of the discussion. You should be confident that the revised manuscript would not need to be re-reviewed.
 
MAJOR REVISION
 
Recommend Major Revision when: the manuscript has significant merit and addresses an important question, but has substantive methodological, analytical, or presentational problems that require substantial work by the author. Be precise about what is required — do not request revisions so extensive that they amount to a new study.
 
REJECT WITH INVITATION TO RESUBMIT
 
Recommend Reject with Invitation to Resubmit when: the manuscript has fundamental flaws that cannot be addressed within a revision cycle, but the research question is valid and the authors show potential. The authors may submit a wholly revised manuscript as a new submission, which will undergo full review.
 
REJECT
 
Recommend Reject when: the manuscript has irremediable flaws — such as fundamental methodological errors that invalidate the conclusions, evidence of research misconduct, absence of ethics approval that cannot be retrospectively obtained, or findings that are wholly unsupported by the data. A rejection recommendation must always be accompanied by substantive justification.
 
9. Special Considerations by Manuscript Type
 
9.1 Original Research Articles
 
Pay particular attention to the study design, sample size justification, statistical analysis, and whether the conclusions are proportionate to the data. Original research is the most common manuscript type and carries the highest methodological demands.
 
9.2 Case Reports and Case Series
 
Evaluate whether the case(s) presented are genuinely novel, instructive, or represent an important clinical learning point. Confirm that: patient consent or ethics approval is documented; the clinical narrative is complete; the discussion contextualises the case within existing literature; and the article avoids unwarranted generalisations from a single case.
 
9.3 Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses
 
Assess compliance with established reporting standards (e.g., PRISMA guidelines). Key areas of scrutiny include: the comprehensiveness of the literature search strategy; the quality and consistency of data extraction; the appropriateness of any pooled analyses; and the handling of heterogeneity and publication bias.
 
9.4  Narrative Review Articles
 
Evaluate the breadth and balance of literature coverage, the clarity of the synthesis, and whether the conclusions offer a meaningful advance beyond a simple summary. Narrative reviews should demonstrate a coherent analytical framework, not merely catalogue existing studies.
 
9.5  Letters to the Editor
 
Where Letters to the Editor are subject to peer review, assess whether the letter makes a specific, substantive, and well-supported point — whether in response to a published article or on a current clinical or scientific topic. Letters should be concise, focused, and free from personal attacks on named authors.
 
10. Timelines and Deadlines
 
The following timelines apply to all reviewers of the ARD Medical Journal:

Action

Responsible Party

Deadline

Respond to review invitation (accept or decline)

Reviewer

5 calendar days

Submit completed review report

Reviewer

21 calendar days from acceptance

Request for extension (if needed)

Reviewer to Section Editor

Before deadline; up to 14 additional days may be granted

Review of revised manuscript (if requested)

Reviewer

14 calendar days
Timely review is essential to maintaining the quality and responsiveness of the Journal. Reviewers who consistently fail to meet deadlines without notice may be removed from the ARD reviewer database. If you are unable to complete a review you have accepted, please notify the Section Editor as early as possible so that a replacement reviewer can be arranged without unreasonable delay to the author.
 
11. After You Submit Your Review
 
11.1 Editorial Decision
 
After all reviews are received, the Section Editor will prepare a consolidated recommendation for the Editor-in-Chief, who will make the final editorial decision. You will be notified of the decision taken on the manuscript you reviewed. Under the OPR model, the editorial decision letter which includes reviewer reports is shared with the author.
 
11.2 Re-Review of Revised Manuscripts
 
Where the author submits a revised manuscript in response to reviewer comments, the revised manuscript will ordinarily be returned to the original reviewers. You will be asked to assess: (a) whether each major comment has been satisfactorily addressed; (b) whether any new concerns have been introduced by the revisions; and (c) whether the manuscript is now ready for publication. You are not required to identify new concerns unrelated to your original comments, though you may note them if significant.
 
When reviewing a revised manuscript, please read the author's point-by-point response letter alongside the revised manuscript. Where an author has respectfully disagreed with one of your comments, consider their rebuttal carefully you may maintain your position or accept their reasoning, but please do so explicitly in your revised review report.
 
11.3 Publication of Your Review
 
If the manuscript is accepted and the Editorial Board exercises its discretion to publish review reports alongside the article, you will be contacted for your approval of the version of your report intended for publication. You will have fourteen (14) calendar days to review and approve it. Minor corrections for clarity are permitted; the substance of your review may not be materially altered.
 
12. Reviewer Recognition
 
The ARD Editorial Board recognizes that peer review represents a significant voluntary contribution of professional time and expertise. The Board is committed to acknowledging this contribution in the following ways:
 
• Reviewers who complete two or more reviews in a given publication year will be listed by name in the Journal's annual Acknowledgement of Reviewers, published in the final issue of each volume;
 
• Reviewers may request a formal certificate of review contribution from the Editorial Secretary, suitable for inclusion in a professional portfolio or CPD record;
 
• Outstanding reviewers selected at the discretion of the Editorial Board based on quality, thoroughness, and timeliness will be recognized annually as Distinguished Reviewers of the ARD Medical Journal;
 
• Reviewer contribution records are maintained confidentially and may be made available to the reviewer upon request for career documentation purposes.
 
Recognition: The quality of your review is part of your professional record. Excellent reviews — those that are thorough, constructive, specific, and timely — contribute visibly to the quality of clinical science in Nigeria and to your standing within the ARD scholarly community.
 
13. Reporting Concerns
 
13.1 Research Misconduct
 
If, during your review, you identify evidence or credible grounds for suspecting research misconduct including fabrication, falsification, plagiarism, duplicate publication, undisclosed conflict of interest, or ethics violations  you should:
 
1. Not include this concern in the main review report addressed to the author;
 
2. Report it confidentially to the Section Editor via the Confidential Comments to Editor field in the review report, or by separate email to the Editorial Secretary;
 
3. Provide specific details  the nature of your concern, the relevant section or data, and any supporting evidence you can identify.
 
The Editorial Board will investigate all credible concerns in accordance with the ARD Medical Journal Peer Review Policy and applicable research integrity guidelines. Your identity as the person raising the concern will be protected to the greatest extent possible.
 
13.2 Editorial Process Concerns
 
If you have a concern about the conduct of the editorial process  for example, inappropriate contact from an author, undue pressure, or a suspected breach of confidentiality please report this directly to the Editor-in-Chief. Where your concern involves the Editor-in-Chief, contact the most senior available Editorial Board member
 
14. Sample Review Report Structure
 
The following is a suggested structure for your review report. You may adapt this structure as appropriate to the manuscript you are reviewing.
 
SAMPLE REVIEW REPORT STRUCTURE
 
Manuscript Title: [Title as submitted]
 
Reviewer: [Your full name and institutional affiliation — visible to author under OPR model]
 
Date of Review: [Date]
 
SECTION 1: SUMMARY
 
[Provide a brief, neutral 3–5 sentence summary of the manuscript's aims, methods, and main findings.]
 
SECTION 2: MAJOR COMMENTS
 
1.  [Major Comment 1 — specific, referenced to page/line, actionable]
 
2.  [Major Comment 2 — as above]
 
SECTION 3: MINOR COMMENTS
 
1.  [Minor Comment 1 — e.g., typographical error, unclear phrasing, reference formatting]
 
SECTION 4: OVERALL RECOMMENDATION
 
[Select one: Accept / Minor Revision / Major Revision / Reject with Invitation to Resubmit / Reject]
 
[Brief rationale for your recommendation — 2–4 sentences]
 
SECTION 5: CONFIDENTIAL COMMENTS TO EDITOR (optional)
 
[Any concerns for the Editor only — e.g., suspected misconduct, undisclosed conflicts. Not shared with author.]
 
15. Contact and Support
 
If you have any questions about the review process, your assigned manuscript, or these guidelines, please contact:
 
• The Editorial Secretary, ARD Medical Journal — for administrative matters, withdrawal, extension requests, or recognition certificates; for questions about the manuscript, timeline, or review scope;
 
• The Editor-in-Chief — for concerns about the editorial process, conflicts of interest, or misconduct.
 
Contact details for all members of the Editorial team are available from the Editorial Secretary and on the ARD Medical Journal's official communication platforms.
 
Quick Reference Checklist — Before You Submit Your Review
 
Please confirm each of the following before submitting your review report:
 

 

Checklist Item

[ ]

I have read the manuscript in full at least twice.

[ ]

I have assessed the manuscript against all criteria in Section 6.

[ ]

My review includes a neutral summary of the manuscript.

[ ]

All major and minor comments are numbered, specific, and referenced to the manuscript.

[ ]

I have clearly distinguished between mandatory revisions and optional suggestions.

[ ]

My language is professional, respectful, and free from personal commentary.

[ ]

I have not used an AI tool to generate or substantially draft my review.

[ ]

I have declared any conflict of interest to the Section Editor.

[ ]

My recommendation is accompanied by a clear and substantive rationale.

[ ]

I have submitted any concerns about misconduct via the Confidential Comments field, not in the main review.

[ ]

I am submitting my review on or before the agreed deadline.
 
Reviewer Guidelines v1.0  |  2026  |  For Official Use