Reviewer Guidelines

The Peer Reviewer's responsibility

Peer reviewers are responsible for critical evaluation of an article and the provision of feedback to the authors respectfully and constructively. Peer reviewers will highlight the strengths and weaknesses of the article, the opportunities for improvement, and evaluate the relevance and originality of the article.

Before accepting to review an article

Kindly consider the following pertinent issues:

  1. Does your expertise match the article you are asked to review?
  2. Do you have time to assess the article?
    • Article reviews are expected to be concluded and reviews returned within two weeks of receipt
  1. Do I have any conflict of interest?
    • Although a conflict of interest does not necessarily disqualify you from reviewing an article, it should be communicated to the Editorial office promptly.

The Review process

Reviewers should bear the following in mind while conducting the research:

  1. Quality and Originality,
    1. Does the article abide by the journal's prescribed standards?
    2. Is the research question important?
    3. Is the article of sufficient novelty and interest to justify its publication?
    4. Does it contribute to the current body of knowledge?
    5. To ascertain originality and appropriateness it is helpful to decide what percentile the research falls into. Is it in the top 50% of papers in this field?
  1. Organization and Clarity

Title: Does it aptly summarize the article?

Abstract: Does it reflect the content of the article?


  • Are the problems stated clearly?
  • Does it provide the context of the research and explain the current situation of the problem?
  • Is the study justified?


Did the authors explain how they obtained data in sufficient detail?

Are the methods suited for the research question?

Are the methods described in sufficient detail?

Based on the report, can the research be duplicated?

Are the sample size and sampling method appropriate to answer the question?

Are the data management process and statistical analysis appropriate?


Are the results presented in a logical sequence?

Do they answer the research question?

Are the results appropriately presented?


Do the claims stem from the results?

Do the claims seem plausible?

Are the claims related to the expected or previous research findings?

Do the conclusions highlight the addition to knowledge?

Tables and figures

Are they clear and appropriate?

Do they properly display the data?

Are they easy to appreciate?

  1. Scope

Is the article suited for the BUMJ?

  1. Other considerations

All articles are confidential and the highest level of confidentiality should be observed. Do not discuss with a third party without permission from the Editor.

Reviewers should not contact authors directly

Report suspicion of fraud and significant plagiarism to the editor, promptly

After the review

Complete the reviewers' comments form and submit them to the editorial office on or before the deadline.