Guidelines for Reviewers

The Journal of Diabetes, Metabolism and Endocrinology considers peer review an essential component of maintaining the quality, integrity, and credibility of scholarly publishing. The journal operates a single-blind peer-review process, in which the identity of the reviewers is not disclosed to the authors, while reviewers may have access to the authors’ identities.

Reviewers are expected to provide objective, constructive, confidential, and scientifically rigorous assessments of manuscripts.

1. Role of Reviewers

Reviewers assist the Editor in evaluating the scientific quality and suitability of submitted manuscripts. Their primary responsibilities are to:

Assess the originality, significance, and relevance of the manuscript.
Evaluate the scientific rationale and research methodology.
Assess the validity and reliability of the results.
Examine whether statistical methods are appropriate and adequately reported.
Determine whether the conclusions are supported by the presented evidence.
Identify important omissions, methodological weaknesses, or inconsistencies.
Evaluate the adequacy and relevance of cited literature.
Identify potential ethical concerns or research-integrity issues.
Provide constructive recommendations that may improve the manuscript.
Make a clear recommendation to the Editor regarding publication.

Reviewers should focus on the scientific content and quality of the manuscript, rather than the authors themselves.

2. Confidentiality

Manuscripts received for review are confidential documents. Reviewers must not:

Share the manuscript or its contents with anyone without prior permission from the Editor.
Discuss the manuscript with colleagues or other individuals.
Use unpublished information obtained during peer review for personal or professional advantage.
Copy, distribute, or retain manuscript material unnecessarily.
Contact the authors directly regarding the manuscript.

The confidentiality of the peer-review process must be maintained before, during, and after publication.

3. Reviewer Independence and Conflicts of Interest

Reviewers must disclose any actual, potential, or perceived conflict of interest before accepting a review assignment.

A reviewer should decline the assignment if they:

Have a personal or professional relationship with one or more authors.
Have recently collaborated with the authors.
Work in direct competition with the research presented.
Have a financial or commercial interest related to the manuscript.
Have another relationship that could reasonably affect their impartiality.

If a potential conflict becomes apparent after accepting the assignment, the reviewer should immediately inform the Editorial Office.

4. Objectivity and Professional Conduct

Reviews must be objective, evidence-based, and professionally written. Reviewers should avoid:

Personal criticism of authors.
Hostile, dismissive, discriminatory, or offensive language.
Unsubstantiated allegations.
Judgments based on nationality, institutional affiliation, gender, seniority, or other characteristics unrelated to scientific merit.

Criticism should be directed toward the manuscript and its methodology, not toward the authors.

5. Guide for Peer Reviewers

Reviewers are encouraged to evaluate the manuscript systematically using the following areas:

A. General Assessment

Consider:

Is the manuscript within the scope of the journal?
Is the research question clearly stated?
Is the study scientifically relevant and potentially useful to the field?
Does the manuscript provide sufficient originality or new knowledge?

B. Title and Abstract

Assess whether:

The title accurately reflects the manuscript.
The abstract clearly summarizes the objectives, methods, major findings, and conclusions.
The abstract is consistent with the main manuscript.

C. Introduction

Consider whether:

The background and rationale are adequately presented.
Relevant literature is appropriately discussed.
The research gap is clearly identified.
The objectives, research questions, or hypotheses are clearly stated.

D. Methodology

Reviewers should carefully assess:

Study design and appropriateness.
Study population and sample size.
Inclusion and exclusion criteria.
Data collection procedures.
Measurement methods and instruments.
Ethical approval and informed consent where applicable.
Statistical methods and analytical procedures.
Whether the methodology is sufficiently detailed to support reproducibility.

For clinical or human-subject research, reviewers should pay particular attention to appropriate ethical approval, informed consent, patient confidentiality, and relevant clinical research standards.

E. Results

Reviewers should determine whether:

Results are presented clearly and logically.
Tables and figures are appropriate and consistent with the text.
Statistical analyses are correctly reported.
The reported results correspond to the stated methodology.
Important findings are adequately supported by the data.
There are indications of possible data inconsistencies, duplication, fabrication, or inappropriate manipulation.

F. Discussion

Assess whether the authors:

Interpret the findings appropriately.
Compare their findings with relevant previous research.
Clearly distinguish evidence from speculation.
Discuss important strengths and limitations.
Avoid overstating the implications of the findings.

G. Conclusions

The conclusions should be supported by the study findings and should not make claims that extend beyond the available evidence.

H. References

Reviewers should assess whether:

References are relevant and sufficiently comprehensive.
Important recent literature has been considered where appropriate.
Citations accurately support the claims made.
There are inappropriate, excessive, or irrelevant citations.

Reviewers should not require authors to cite the reviewer’s own publications unless such references are genuinely necessary and scientifically justified.

6. Ethical and Research Integrity Concerns

Reviewers should alert the Editor if they identify credible concerns regarding:

Plagiarism or substantial text similarity.
Duplicate or redundant publication.
Fabrication or falsification of data.
Suspicious image manipulation.
Inappropriate authorship.
Undisclosed conflicts of interest.
Ethical approval or informed-consent concerns.
Potential patient-identification or confidentiality issues.
Manipulation of citations or peer review.

Reviewers should not independently investigate or contact third parties or the authors about suspected misconduct. Such concerns should be reported confidentially to the Editor, who will handle them according to the journal’s research-misconduct and publication-ethics procedures.

7. Recommendation to the Editor

At the end of the review, reviewers should provide a recommendation based on the overall scientific quality of the manuscript. Possible recommendations may include:

Accept: The manuscript is suitable for publication with no substantive changes.
Minor Revision: Limited changes are required before publication.
Major Revision: Significant issues must be addressed and the revised manuscript may require further review.
Reject: The manuscript has fundamental scientific, methodological, ethical, or scope-related problems that cannot reasonably be resolved through revision.

The recommendation should be consistent with the detailed comments provided in the review.

8. Comments to Authors and Confidential Comments to the Editor

Reviewers may provide:

Comments to Authors:
These should contain constructive, specific, and actionable feedback that helps authors improve the manuscript.

Confidential Comments to the Editor:
These may include information concerning ethical issues, conflicts of interest, suspected misconduct, or other matters that should not be disclosed to the authors.

Reviewers should ensure that comments to authors remain professional and do not reveal their identity.

9. Reviewer Anonymity

Under the journal's single-blind peer-review model, reviewer identities are kept confidential from authors. Reviewer names and identifying information will not normally be disclosed in the published article or correspondence with authors.

Reviewers should also avoid including unnecessary information in their reports that could reveal their identity.

10. Timeliness

Reviewers should accept an assignment only when they have sufficient expertise and adequate time to complete the review within the requested period.

If a reviewer is unable to complete the review on time, they should notify the Editorial Office as soon as possible. The Editor may provide an extension or appoint another reviewer.

11. Becoming a Reviewer

Researchers and academic professionals who wish to serve as reviewers may express their interest by contacting the Editorial Office or registering through the journal's online submission and peer-review system.

Potential reviewers should generally have:

Relevant academic or professional expertise.
Appropriate research or publication experience.
Familiarity with current research methods in their field.
A record of scholarly activity where applicable.
An understanding of publication ethics and responsible peer review.

Applicants should provide accurate information regarding their institutional affiliation, academic qualifications, areas of expertise, research interests, and relevant publications.

Reviewer selection is based on subject expertise, methodological competence, availability, independence, and the absence of relevant conflicts of interest.

12. Reviewer Recognition

The journal may recognize the contribution of reviewers through appropriate mechanisms, subject to reviewer confidentiality and applicable privacy requirements. Any recognition program will not compromise the anonymity or integrity of the peer-review process.

13. Use of Artificial Intelligence and Other Tools

Reviewers must protect the confidentiality of manuscripts. They should not upload unpublished manuscripts, confidential data, figures, tables, or other manuscript content into external artificial-intelligence systems or other third-party services where confidentiality or data ownership cannot be assured.

AI-assisted tools must not replace the reviewer's own critical assessment and professional judgment. Reviewers remain responsible for the accuracy, confidentiality, and integrity of their submitted review.

14. Final Responsibility of the Reviewer

Peer review is an academic responsibility requiring confidentiality, impartiality, integrity, and professional judgment. Reviewers should provide honest and constructive assessments while recognizing that the final editorial decision rests with the Editor.

By accepting a review assignment, reviewers agree to comply with these guidelines and with applicable publication-ethics principles, including relevant guidance from the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and recognized standards for responsible scholarly peer review.