The SCICONX Journal of Endocrine and Diabetic Health (JEDH) relies on the valuable expertise and commitment of peer reviewers to maintain the quality, rigor, and credibility of the scientific work published. Reviewers play a critical role in safeguarding the integrity of academic publishing by evaluating the scientific merit, clarity, validity, and ethical standards of submitted manuscripts.

This page outlines the responsibilities, expectations, and review process guidelines for all reviewers associated with JEDH.

1. Role of Reviewers

Reviewers are expected to:

• Provide constructive, unbiased, and evidence-based feedback
• Assess whether the manuscript meets the journal’s scientific and ethical standards
• Help authors improve the clarity, depth, and impact of their work
• Aid editors in making informed and fair publication decisions
• Maintain strict confidentiality at all stages

Reviewers act as essential partners in JEDH’s mission to advance endocrinology, diabetes, and metabolic research.

2. Reviewer Eligibility

Reviewers should possess:

• Recognized expertise in endocrinology, diabetes, metabolism, or related fields
• A strong academic or clinical background
• A track record of scholarly publications
• Commitment to ethical scientific evaluation

Reviewers invited by JEDH are selected based on subject specialization and prior review excellence.

3. Confidentiality Requirements

• Manuscripts and all related documents must be treated as strictly confidential.
• Content must not be discussed or shared with colleagues, students, or third parties.
• Reviewers must not use unpublished data, ideas, or methods from the manuscript for personal research or gain.
• If a reviewer wishes to consult a colleague for technical input, prior permission from the Editor is required.

4. Declaring Conflicts of Interest

Reviewers must disclose any potential conflicts, including:

• Personal or professional connections with the authors
• Recent collaborations (within 3–5 years)
• Shared affiliations or grants
• Financial or commercial interests linked to the study
• Personal bias that may affect objectivity

If a conflict exists, reviewers should decline the review promptly.

5. Acceptance or Decline of Review Invitation

Upon receiving an invitation, reviewers should:

• Acknowledge the invitation within 48–72 hours
• Accept only if they can provide a high-quality review within the deadline
• Decline if the manuscript falls outside their area of expertise
• Decline if they anticipate inability to meet timing expectations
• Suggest alternative qualified reviewers if unavailable

Timely responses help ensure efficient manuscript processing.

6. Review Timeline

• Standard review timeframe: 10–21 days
• Extensions may be granted upon request
• Reviewers should notify the editorial office immediately if delays occur

Timeliness is critical to maintaining a positive author experience.

7. Conducting the Review

Reviewers should focus on:

7.1 Scientific Quality

• Originality and contribution to the field
• Soundness of methods and study design
• Validity of results, statistics, and analyses
• Clarity and appropriateness of conclusions

7.2 Ethical Standards

• Approval from ethics committees/IRB
• Informed consent documentation
• Ethical treatment of human or animal subjects
• Transparency in reporting conflicts, funding, and limitations

7.3 Clarity and Presentation

• Logical structure and readability
• Adequacy of introduction and literature context
• Quality of figures, tables, and supplementary material
• Grammar, organization, and scientific clarity

8. Review Report Structure

Reviewers should provide a structured evaluation consisting of:

A. Summary of the Manuscript

• Brief overview of objectives, methods, and key findings
• Demonstrates reviewer understanding and sets context

B. Major Comments

Issues that significantly affect:

• Study design
• Data interpretation
• Methodology
• Conclusions
• Ethical concerns

These must be addressed before publication consideration.

C. Minor Comments

• Typographical errors
• Missing citations
• Formatting inconsistencies
• Minor clarifications needed

D. Recommendations to the Editor

Reviewers should provide a confidential comment indicating:

• Accept
• Minor revision required
• Major revision required
• Reject
• Suggest re-review after revision

Confidential notes should not be shared with the authors.

9. Reviewer Conduct and Ethics

Reviewers must adhere to the following ethical principles:

9.1 Objectivity

• Base evaluations on scientific merit alone
• Personal criticism of the authors is not acceptable

9.2 Constructive Tone

• Comments should be respectful, clear, and actionable
• Avoid overly harsh, vague, or dismissive language

9.3 Avoiding Bias

• Reviewers should avoid discrimination based on:
  • Nationality
  • Institution
  • Gender
  • Race
  • Religion
  • Career stage

9.4 No Use of Unpublished Data

• Reviewers must not incorporate manuscript findings into personal work
• Any suspicion of scientific misconduct should be reported to the Editor

10. Evaluation of Specific Manuscript Sections

Reviewers should give special attention to:

10.1 Title & Abstract

• Clear?
• Accurate summary of findings?

10.2 Introduction

• Appropriate background?
• Well-defined research question or hypothesis?

10.3 Methods

• Adequately described for replication?
• Appropriate sample size, controls, and statistical tools?
• Ethical approvals included?

10.4 Results

• Presented clearly and logically?
• Tables and figures understandable and necessary?
• No duplication between text and visuals?

10.5 Discussion

• Interpretation consistent with results?
• Limitations acknowledged?
• No overgeneralization?

10.6 References

• Relevant and up to date?
• Properly formatted?

11. Reasons for Recommending Rejection

A manuscript may be rejected if it shows:

• Plagiarism or ethical misconduct
• Flawed study design or inadequate methodology
• Unsupported or overstated conclusions
• Lack of novelty or scientific contribution
• Poor writing that prevents meaningful evaluation
• Incomplete or inconsistent data

Editors rely on reviewer judgment for such decisions.

12. Recognition of Reviewer Contributions

JEDH values reviewer contributions through:

• Annual recognition lists on the website
• Reviewer certificates upon request
• Priority consideration for Editorial Board positions for outstanding reviewers
• Invitations to special issues or thematic reviews

Reviewers are key partners in shaping the journal’s prestige and scientific influence.

13. Reviewer Training and Support

JEDH provides ongoing guidance to reviewers through:

• Reviewer orientation materials
• Detailed review templates
• Editorial assistance upon request
• Opportunities for mentorship by senior editors

New reviewers are encouraged to seek advice when needed.

14. Contact and Assistance

For reviewer-related questions or technical difficulties, please contact: editor.jedh@sciconxjournals.com

The editorial office is available to assist with ethical inquiries, deadline adjustments, or reviewer support needs.