Reviewer Guidelines

NRME Journals (Newredmars Education Publication House)

These guidelines are structured in accordance with the NRME Peer Review Process workflow and reflect internationally accepted best practices in scholarly publishing. Reviewers are essential to ensuring scientific quality, ethical compliance, and editorial integrity.

1. Position of Reviewers in the Editorial Workflow

Within the NRME review system, reviewers are engaged after editorial screening and play a decisive role in the 2–4 week double-blind peer review stage. Their evaluation directly informs the editor’s final decision within the 6–8 week total publication timeline.

2. Reviewer Assignment

• Each manuscript is assigned to 2–3 expert reviewers based on subject expertise
• Reviewers are selected for their academic competence, publication record, and independence
• Invitations should be accepted only if the reviewer:
  • Has relevant expertise
  • Can complete the review within the required timeframe
  • Has no conflict of interest

3. Confidentiality and Ethical Responsibility

Reviewers must strictly follow ethical standards consistent with COPE guidelines:

• Treat manuscripts as confidential documents
• Do not share or use unpublished content
• Declare any conflict of interest immediately
• Avoid bias related to nationality, gender, institution, or ideology

Any suspicion of misconduct (plagiarism, fabricated data, unethical research) should be reported confidentially to the editor.

4. Double-Blind Peer Review Expectations

• NRME follows a double-blind review system:
• Reviewer identity remains hidden from authors
• Author identity remains hidden from reviewers
• Reviewers must not attempt to identify authors or contact them directly.

5. Review Criteria (As per NRME Review Framework)

Reviewers must evaluate manuscripts based on the structured criteria used in the review stage:

a. Scientific Quality

• Does the research address a meaningful problem?
• Are conclusions supported by evidence?

b. Methodology

• Is the study design appropriate and clearly explained?
• Are methods reproducible and statistically sound?

c. Results and References

• Are results clearly presented and interpreted correctly?
• Are references current, relevant, and properly cited?

d. Ethical Standards

• Evidence of ethical approval (if applicable)
• Proper disclosure of funding and conflicts
• Compliance with research and publication ethics

6. Plagiarism, AI Content, and Integrity Checks

During review, attention should be given to:

• Plagiarism or text duplication
• AI-generated or AI-assisted content without disclosure
• Inconsistencies in writing style or data reporting
• Image or data manipulation

Reviewers should not make direct accusations but must inform the editor with clear observations.

7. Reviewer Recommendations

Based on evaluation, reviewers must select one of the following decisions:

• Accept – Manuscript is ready for publication
• Minor Revision – Small improvements required
• Major Revision – Significant changes needed
• Reject – Scientifically weak, unethical, or out of scope

Each recommendation must be supported by clear, evidence-based comments.

8. Constructive Feedback Format

A well-structured review should include:

• Brief Summary – Understanding of the manuscript
• Major Comments – Core scientific concerns
• Minor Comments – Language, formatting, clarity
• Final Recommendation

Comments must be:

• Professional and respectful
• Specific and actionable
• Focused on improving the manuscript

9. Author Revision Stage

• Authors submit a revised manuscript and response to reviewers
• Reviewers may be asked to re-evaluate the revised version
• Ensure that all major concerns have been adequately addressed

10. Timelines and Efficiency

• Review completion time: 2–4 weeks
• Prompt communication is required if delays occur
• Timely reviews support the overall 6–8 week publication cycle

11. Role in Final Decision

• Reviewers provide recommendations only
• The final decision is made by the editor, based on:
• Reviewer reports
• Scientific merit
• Journal scope

12. Transparency and Accountability

• Objective and traceable review reports
• Support for appeals and complaints processes when required
• Adherence to ethical review practices

13. Recognition and Professional Contribution

• Certificates of review
• Editorial board opportunities
• Annual recognition programs

High-quality reviews strengthen both the journal and the reviewer’s academic profile.