For Reviewers

(1) Screening

• After receiving manuscripts, JRCR performs an initial desk review. All those manuscripts are likely to be rejected, if found any ethical breach, conflict of interest, poor writing etc.

 (2) Peer- Review

• Next step after initial scrutiny is peer review process, that would be single blind process and manuscripts would be sent to external peer reviewers.
• Papers that are judged appropriate are subsequently normally sent to at least two independent, experienced reviewers who will evaluate the paper's scientific merit. The Editor is in charge of making the final determination regarding whether or not an article will be accepted.
• External peer review would also be applicable to articles by editorial board members.
• Editors are not involved in choices on papers that they have authored, have had authored by relatives, friends, or coworkers, or that are about goods or services in which the editor has an interest. All journal procedures apply to such submissions, and peer review is carried out independently of the appropriate editor and their research organizations
• If editor in chief, author an article, that would not need to be peer reviewed.

The reviewer:

• will give general comments on importance of the subject, write up style, spelling and grammar etc.
• will ensure that the abstract is structured as per guidelines, has up to 250 words with 3-5 key words mentioned.
• will comment on the ‘Introduction’ if it is well- introduced, highlights the importance of topic, provides a brief reference to the previous literature, clearly mentions the rationale of the study, and the objectives are stated clearly.
• will check if the study design, duration & place where the study was conducted, inclusion & exclusion criteria design and methodology are described well, and statistical tests are incorporated.
• will comment on the ‘Results’ if the data is presented in clear sentences supported by tables and graphs with statistical analysis. The reviewer also comments if the results relevant and coherent with aims and objectives of the study.
• will comment on the ‘Discussion’ if the key findings are discussed and compared with already reported literature.
• will check if the conclusion, Strengths, limitations of the study and future recommendations are mentioned.
• will check if the source of funding is declared.
• will check if the Acknowledgements are mentioned, if any.
• will check if the references are in Vancouver style, 15 -25 in number and are 5-10 years old at max.
• Reviewers should declare any conflict of interest (if any) to the editor and must complete the review within a specified period (usually four weeks).