Peer reviewers play an essential role in safeguarding the scientific quality, ethical standards, and overall impact of the Journal of Mental Health and Psychiatry (JMHP). Their expertise and constructive feedback guide authors in strengthening their work and support the editorial team in making fair, evidence-based publication decisions.

This document provides clear guidance for reviewers to ensure transparency, consistency, and professionalism throughout the peer review process.

1. Role of Reviewers

As a reviewer for JMHP, you are expected to:

• Evaluate manuscripts objectively, fairly, and in a timely manner.
• Provide constructive feedback that helps authors improve their work.
• Maintain confidentiality of all manuscripts and related communications.
• Declare any conflicts of interest that may compromise impartiality.
• Support the journal in upholding high standards of ethics and scholarship.

2. Types of Manuscripts Reviewed

Reviewers may be invited to evaluate:

• Original Research Articles
• Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses
• Case Reports and Case Series
• Short Communications
• Editorials and Commentaries
• Letters to the Editor

Each type of manuscript should be assessed according to its specific objectives, methodological rigor, and relevance to the field.

3. General Review Guidelines

a. Confidentiality

• Manuscripts are confidential documents and must not be shared, discussed, or used for personal advantage.
• Reviewers must not contact authors directly; all communications occur through the editorial office.

b. Conflicts of Interest

• Reviewers must disclose any conflicts (personal, academic, financial, or professional) that could bias their assessment.
• If a conflict exists, reviewers should decline the invitation promptly.

c. Timeliness

• Reviews should be submitted within the agreed timeline (usually 2–3 weeks).
• If unable to complete on time, reviewers should inform the editor immediately to avoid delays in publication.

4. Key Elements to Evaluate

When reviewing a manuscript, please consider the following aspects:

1. Title and Abstract
   • Is the title clear, concise, and reflective of the study?
   • Does the abstract provide a balanced summary of the work?
2. Introduction
   • Does it clearly state the research problem and objectives?
   • Is the background information adequate and up-to-date?
3. Methods
   • Are the study design, sample, and procedures appropriate?
   • Are ethical approvals and informed consent clearly documented?
   • Is the methodology described in sufficient detail for reproducibility?
4. Results
   • Are results presented clearly, logically, and without bias?
   • Do tables, figures, and statistics support the findings?
5. Discussion and Conclusion
   • Are findings interpreted accurately and in context with existing literature?
   • Are limitations acknowledged?
   • Do the conclusions align with the results?
6. References
   • Are citations relevant, recent, and appropriately formatted?
7. Overall Contribution
   • Does the study advance knowledge or practice in mental health and psychiatry?
   • Is it relevant to the international readership of JMHP?

5. Review Report Structure

Your report should include:

• Summary: A brief overview of the study in your own words.
• Major Comments: Detailed, constructive feedback on significant issues (methodology, analysis, interpretation).
• Minor Comments: Suggestions on clarity, organization, grammar, or formatting.
• Recommendation: One of the following decisions:
  • Accept
  • Minor Revision
  • Major Revision
  • Reject

Please provide reasons for your recommendation to assist both the authors and editors.

6. Ethical Responsibilities of Reviewers

• Objectivity: Criticize the work, not the author. Personal remarks are unacceptable.
• Fairness: Ensure evaluation is free from bias regarding nationality, gender, institution, or personal beliefs.
• Integrity: Report any suspected ethical misconduct (plagiarism, duplicate publication, data manipulation) to the editor.
• Constructiveness: Provide feedback that not only identifies shortcomings but also suggests possible improvements.

7. Reviewer Recognition

• JMHP values the time and expertise of reviewers. Contributions are acknowledged annually through a Reviewer Recognition Program.
• Reviewers may also be considered for Editorial Board positions based on the quality and consistency of their reviews.

8. Support and Queries

For any questions regarding the review process or ethical concerns, reviewers may contact the Editorial Office at editor.jmhp@sciconxjournals.com. Assistance is available to ensure reviewers feel supported throughout their role.

As a reviewer, you are a cornerstone of JMHP’s mission to advance global mental health and psychiatry. Your careful evaluation and thoughtful feedback help ensure that published articles meet the highest standards of quality, integrity, and impact. We deeply appreciate your dedication and contribution to the scientific community.