Reviewer Guidelines
Reviewer Guidelines
Dharmaputra Medical Law Journal (DMLJ)
Jurnal Dharmaputra Hukum Kesehatan
P-ISSN: 3124-1964 | E-ISSN: 3124-1840
The Role of the Peer Reviewer
Peer review is the cornerstone of scientific publishing. The Dharmaputra Medical Law Journal (DMLJ) employs a rigorous double-blind peer review process in which neither authors nor reviewers are known to each other. This process ensures impartial, expert evaluation of all submitted manuscripts in the fields of medical law, health law, and related disciplines.
Reviewers are the guardians of quality in scholarly publishing. By contributing their expertise, reviewers help authors improve their work, assist editors in making sound decisions, and uphold the credibility of the scientific record. DMLJ follows the COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers and all reviewers are expected to conduct their work in accordance with these standards.
Accepting or Declining a Review Invitation
When you receive a review invitation from DMLJ, please respond promptly — within 5 working days — whether you intend to accept or decline. Timely responses allow the editorial team to identify alternative reviewers if necessary and avoid delays for authors.
You should decline a review invitation if:
- You do not have sufficient expertise in the subject matter of the manuscript.
- You have a conflict of interest with the authors, the institution, or the topic.
- You have collaborated with any of the listed authors in the past three years.
- You are currently employed at the same institution as any of the authors.
- You have a personal relationship (positive or negative) with any of the authors that could bias your review.
- You do not have sufficient time to complete the review within the requested timeframe.
If you decline, please suggest alternative reviewers with relevant expertise where possible. This is greatly appreciated by the editorial team and helps maintain an efficient review process.
Review Timeline
DMLJ strives to provide authors with a timely review process. The standard review period is 14 to 28 days from acceptance of the review invitation. The specific deadline will be communicated in your invitation email.
5 days
Respond to invitation (accept or decline)
14-28 days
Complete and submit your review
Prompt
Notify editors if you need an extension
If you require an extension, please contact the editorial office as early as possible. Extensions may be granted at the discretion of the editor. Repeated failure to submit reviews on time may result in removal from the reviewer database.
Confidentiality
All manuscripts received for review are confidential documents. Reviewers must not share, discuss, or disclose any aspect of a manuscript — including its existence, contents, findings, or authorship — with any person outside the formal review process. This obligation continues after the review is complete and extends indefinitely.
Reviewers must not:
- Share a manuscript or its contents with colleagues, students, or assistants without explicit written permission from the editor.
- Use unpublished data, methods, or conclusions from the manuscript for their own research.
- Attempt to determine the identity of the authors.
- Retain a copy of the manuscript after the review is completed.
- Discuss the manuscript at conferences, workshops, or in public forums before it is published.
In exceptional circumstances, a reviewer may wish to seek input from a colleague with specialist expertise. This is only permissible with prior approval from the editor, and the colleague must also agree to maintain confidentiality.
Evaluation Criteria
When evaluating a manuscript for DMLJ, reviewers are asked to assess the following dimensions:
Originality and Significance
Does the work make a meaningful and original contribution to the fields of medical law or health law? Does it advance knowledge beyond existing literature?
Methodology
Is the research design appropriate and clearly described? Are the methods sound, reproducible, and sufficient to support the conclusions drawn?
Clarity and Presentation
Is the manuscript well-structured and clearly written? Are figures, tables, and supplementary materials appropriate and properly labeled?
Scientific Accuracy
Are the data and results presented accurately and completely? Are the statistical analyses (where applicable) appropriate and correctly interpreted?
References and Citations
Are references relevant, current, and correctly formatted using the Vancouver system? Are key works in the field appropriately cited?
Ethics and Compliance
Is ethics committee approval stated? Is informed consent addressed? Does the study comply with the Declaration of Helsinki and KEPK requirements?
How to Write a High-Quality Review
A well-written peer review is specific, constructive, and actionable. The goal is not only to evaluate, but to help authors improve their work. The following structure is recommended:
1. Summary (2-4 sentences)
Briefly summarize the aims, methods, and main findings of the manuscript in your own words. This demonstrates to the authors and editor that you have read and understood the work, and reveals any significant misunderstandings early.
2. Overall Assessment
Provide a brief overall assessment of the manuscript's strengths and weaknesses. Comment on the significance of the work and whether it is suitable for the scope and readership of DMLJ.
3. Major Comments (numbered list)
List significant issues that must be addressed before the manuscript can be considered for publication. These may include conceptual flaws, methodological weaknesses, missing analyses, inadequate discussion of limitations, or ethical concerns. Each comment should be specific, with reference to line numbers where possible, and should suggest how the issue can be addressed.
4. Minor Comments (numbered list)
List smaller issues such as unclear phrasing, grammatical errors, missing references, or formatting inconsistencies. These are expected to be addressed in a revision but would not on their own prevent publication.
5. Confidential Comments to the Editor (optional)
Use this section to communicate concerns to the editor that you do not wish to share directly with the authors, such as suspected plagiarism, ethical violations, or concerns about data integrity. These comments are not shared with authors.
Recommendation Options
At the conclusion of your review, you will be asked to provide one of the following recommendations. Note that the final editorial decision rests with the editor and may differ from your recommendation:
Accept as submitted
The manuscript is ready for publication without changes. Use this recommendation sparingly — most manuscripts benefit from at least minor revisions.
Minor Revision
The manuscript is sound but requires minor improvements. Authors are typically given a short timeframe for revisions, which may not require a further round of review.
Major Revision
The manuscript requires substantial revision before it can be considered for publication. A revised manuscript will typically be reviewed by the same reviewers.
Reject
The manuscript has fundamental flaws that cannot be remedied by revision, or is not within the scope of DMLJ. Rejection should always be accompanied by constructive justification.
Conflict of Interest Declaration
Reviewers must declare any conflict of interest at the time of accepting or declining a review invitation. A conflict of interest may be real, potential, or perceived. Common situations requiring declaration include:
- Current or recent (within 3 years) collaboration with any of the listed authors.
- Current employment at the same institution as the authors.
- Any financial interest in the research, including funding from or employment by a company whose products are studied in the manuscript.
- Personal relationships that could bias your assessment positively or negatively.
- Active competition for the same research grants, contracts, or academic positions as the authors.
If a conflict of interest is discovered after you have accepted a review, notify the editorial office immediately. Do not proceed with the review until the editor confirms it is appropriate to do so.
COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers
DMLJ requires all reviewers to conduct their work in accordance with the COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers. Key principles include:
- Peer review is an obligation: if you agree to review, complete the review to the best of your ability.
- Reviews should be conducted objectively; personal criticism of the authors is not acceptable.
- Reviewers should flag suspected misconduct to the editor rather than rejecting the paper outright.
- Reviewers should not suggest that authors add citations to the reviewer's own work unless there is a genuine academic justification for doing so.
- Unpublished material from reviewed manuscripts must not be used in the reviewer's own research without explicit written consent from the authors.
Full guidelines are available on the COPE website at publicationethics.org.
Reviewer Recognition
DMLJ recognizes the invaluable contribution of our reviewers. Peer review is a significant commitment of professional time and expertise, and we appreciate every reviewer who contributes to maintaining the quality and integrity of DMLJ.
Reviewers who complete their assignments diligently and on time are acknowledged in our annual reviewer recognition list, which is published on the DMLJ website. This list is updated annually and serves as a formal record of contribution to the journal.
DMLJ is a Diamond Open Access journal with no article processing charges. While we are unable to offer financial compensation for peer review, we can provide certificates of peer review upon request, which reviewers may use to document their service in academic portfolios and promotion applications.
Principal Contact: Gede Krisna Udiana, S.K.M., M.H.Kes. | +62 812-3898-787 | udiana.krisna@gmail.com