Reviewers' Guidelines
                                                                                                 

1. Introduction

Thank you for agreeing to review for JoMMID. Your expertise and insights are crucial in maintaining the high scientific standards of our journal. These guidelines are designed to assist you in conducting a thorough, fair, and timely review.

2. Double-Blind Peer Review Process

JoMMID employs a double-blind peer review process. The identities of both authors and reviewers are concealed throughout the review process. Please ensure that your comments do not reveal your identity and report any suspicions about the authors' identity to the editor.

3. Ethical Considerations
   1. Confidentiality: Treat all manuscript information as strictly confidential.
   2. Conflicts of Interest: Declare any potential conflicts of interest before accepting a review assignment.
   3. Objectivity: Provide an unbiased, objective assessment based solely on scientific merit.
4. Review Criteria

Evaluate the manuscript based on the following criteria:

4. 1. Originality and Significance
   2. Scientific Rigor and Methodology
   3. Data Presentation and Analysis
   4. Clarity of Writing and Organization
   5. Relevance to JoMMID's Scope
   6. Ethical Compliance (e.g., Approval of Iranian National Committee for Ethics in Biomedical Research, informed consent)
5. Review Process
   1. Initial Assessment: Determine if the manuscript is suitable for full review.
   2. In-depth Evaluation: Critically analyze all aspects of the study.
   3. Constructive Feedback: Provide detailed, actionable comments for improvement.
   4. Recommendation: Suggest one of the following:

• Accept
• Minor Revision
• Major Revision
• Reject

6. Structuring Your Review
   1. Summary: Briefly summarize the main findings and their significance.
   2. Major Comments: Address fundamental issues with methodology, interpretation, or conclusions.
   3. Minor Comments: Note issues with presentation, clarity, or minor scientific points.
   4. Confidential Comments to Editor: Provide any concerns not suitable for authors.
7. Specific Aspects to Consider
   1. Title: Is it accurate, concise, and reflective of the content?
   2. Abstract: Does it clearly summarize the key findings?
   3. Introduction: Is the background comprehensive and the hypothesis clear?
   4. Methods: Are they described in sufficient detail for replication?
   5. Results: Are they presented clearly and support the conclusions?
   6. Discussion: Is it balanced, placing findings in the context of existing literature?
   7. Figures and Tables: Are they necessary, clear, and properly labeled?
   8. References: Are they current, relevant, and properly formatted?
8. Timeliness

Complete your review within the agreed timeframe, typically 1-2 weeks. If you need an extension, please contact the editorial office promptly.

9. Reporting Potential Misconduct

Report any suspicions of plagiarism, data fabrication, or other ethical violations to the editor immediately.

10. Revisions

When reviewing revised manuscripts, assess how well the authors have addressed previous comments and recommendations.

11. Final Recommendations

Provide clear, concise recommendations to guide the editor's decision-making process.

12. Continuous Improvement

JoMMID values reviewer feedback. Please share any suggestions for improving our review process or guidelines.

13. Resources for Reviewers

Familiarize yourself with guidelines from COPE (Committee on Publication Ethics) and ICMJE (International Committee of Medical Journal Editors) for best practices in peer review.