Reviewer Guidelines
The Nigerian Journal of General Practice appreciates you for accepting to review this manuscript. It was sent to you because we believe the subject is within your area of specialization. Kindly follow the guidelines and do a timeous review to help us quickly process the manuscript for publication.
Please note the following.
Exploitation of manuscript under review:
Citing or use of manuscript under review by the reviewer is prohibited. Reviewers should not cite a manuscript or refer to the work it describes before it has been published, and should refrain from using the information it contains for the advancement of their own research work.
A reviewer should consciously adopt a positive, impartial attitude towards the manuscript under review. Reviewer’s position should be that of the author's ally, with the aim of promoting excellent, effective and accurate scientific communication.
The editor gratefully receives a reviewer's recommendations, but since the editorial decisions are usually based on evaluations derived from several sources, a reviewer may not expect the editor to honour his or her every recommendation very strictly. However, the Reviewer’s recommendation is invaluable in processing the manuscript for publication.
Timely completion of review:
Reviewers should complete the review of articles timeously and expeditiously, within two weeks. Kindly inform the editor if you need more time for the review. Reviewers are not allowed to discuss with the authors of the manuscript under review.
Acceptability of papers
Reviewers are kindly advised not make any specific statement about acceptability of a paper in his comments for transmission to the author, but should advise the editor on sheet provided.
Your criticism, arguments, and suggestions concerning the manuscript will be most useful to the editor if they are carefully documented. Reviewer's recommendations to the editor are highly respected.
Template for Technical Review
Is the title suggestive of the article’s content?
The objectives of the article should be met
Justification of research should be clearly stated
Is the article appropriately organized and are the headings indicative of content?
Use of established and standard methods in executing the research work
Is (are) the research question(s) clearly and objectively addressed?
Are the References up to date, satisfactory and relevant? Any glaring omissions?
Does the article conform to International Ethical guidelines?
Is there clarity of writing?
Is the writing style satisfactory?
Relevance of the figures and table, clarity of legends and titles.
Language of Composition
The manuscript should be written in English in a clear, direct and active style, free from grammatical errors and other linguistic inconsistencies. All pages should be numbered sequentially, facilitating the reviewing and editing of the manuscript.
Experiments involving Humans and Animals
The research must meet the highest applicable international standards of the ethics of experimentation and research integrity. The guidelines for the use of animals and humans is available on the journal website.
If you accept the invitation to review:
Download all manuscript materials.
Keep all manuscript and review details confidential.
Advise the editor of your recommendation for acceptance, revise or rejection by providing specific comments and suggestions.
If you decline the invitation to review:
If you decline to review, please indicate the reason
If possible suggest any of your colleagues or alternative reviewers
Obligations of Reviewers
Confidentiality of information
The reviewer should maintain the confidentiality of any information supplied by the editor or author. The reviewer should not retain or copy the manuscript in any form or format.
The Reviewer should not use any information, arguments, or interpretations contained in a manuscript under consideration to advance their research unless the information has been made publicly available through another source, such as an abstract or a presentation at a meeting, a stock offering, or a new article.
Objectivity and equity
The reviewer should not communicate with authors about a manuscript under consideration. Likewise, authors should not initiate such a communication with a reviewer but instead should communicate only with the editor. If an author persists in attempting to communicate with a reviewer, that reviewer should notify the editor. The Editorial Board of Nigerian Journal of General Practice (NJGP) will in turn initiate the necessary and legitimate mechanisms for addressing it.
Acknowledgement of Source and Disclosure and Conflicts of Interest
The reviewer should be aware of any potential conflicts of interest (financial, institutional, collaborative or other relationships between the reviewer and author) and to alert the editor to these, if necessary withdrawing their services for that manuscript. Such communication between the editor and the reviewer should be done by email.
Contribution to Editorial Decision making process
The reviewer should contribute to the decision-making process, and to assist in improving the quality of the published manuscript by subjecting the paper to objective and efficient review process.
The reviewer receives an invitation to review a manuscript at a time when circumstances preclude prompt attention to it, the reviewer should decline the invitation in a timely manner. The reviewer should submit his/her evaluation of the manuscript in a timely manner.
The reviewer should consider the quality and significance of the experimental and theoretical work, the completeness of the description of methods and materials, the logical basis of the interpretation of the results, and the exposition with due regard to the maintenance of high standards of communication. Reviews should include constructive suggestions for revision and corrections, including, if appropriate, indication of where statements may require additional reference to the published literature.
The reviewers should comment tactfully. Harsh language and personal attacks on the authors are unacceptable; they also may call into question the validity of the reviewer's comments.
An individual who is asked to review a manuscript and who feels inadequately qualified to judge that manuscript should return the manuscript promptly without review and advise the editor of the circumstances.
Reviewer’s certificate
The reviewer will be rewarded with a certificate at the completion of review process.
