Reviewers´ page

Scientific and medical literature shared through open access channels is growing exponentially. New journals are published each passing day, consequently competing for quality and relevance by attracting manuscript submissions, as well as attracting and sustaining a pool of experienced and valuable reviewers.

The Pan African Medical Journal(PAMJ-CM) has a variety of resources for professionals from different health and medical-related arenas from all over the world, who provide critical peer review of manuscripts. The map below shows PAMJ-CM´s global footprint in terms of the number of professionals support PAMJ-CM by reviewing manuscripts submitted for publication.

We know what it takes to review a manuscript; journals target high profile professionals; they are usually very busy and have competing priorities.

Reviewers play an undeniable role in maintaining the quality of scientific publications by freely sharing their time, expertise, resourceful minds, and knowledge. The PAMJ-CM therefore consistently seeks to partner with enthusiastic and experienced professionals to review manuscripts submitted to our journal and help authors turn them into winning publications. To become a reviewer, complete the form below and you will be added to the PAMJ-CM Reviewers Database

PAMJ-CM review process

At PAMJ-CM, we review all the material we receive. The editors of PAMJ-CM performs an internal peer-review at the end of which, a manuscript can be rejected, accepted or submitted for external peer-review.

During the initial internal review, the editors focus on the overall look of the manuscript, adherence to journal standards, the quality of the written language. At this stage, we editors also focus on the manuscriptis falls within the scope of the journal, the topic addressed in the manuscript, its relevance to the journal audience, its originality, adherence to publication and research ethics. The overall methodology of the work is also reviewed at this stage to try to identify gross methodological shortfalls. Most of the manuscripts will not be sent for external peer review at this stage to avoid spending valuable reviewers time. We may eventually request the authors to submit a revised version of their manuscript at this stage.

Download an overview of PAMJ-CM review template (PDF 105 KB).

Read our peer review policy

Material for reviewers

To facilitate the assessment of manuscript by peer-reviewers, PAMJ-CM provides a peer-review form. The peer reviewers will provide their expert judgment on the quality (general aspects, objectives, methods, majors revisions, minor revisions, opinion on whether or not the manuscript should be published). A copy of the reviewer´s template is available here.

Below is a list of other material that could be of help to peer-reviewers:

• Equator Network resources for reviewers
• COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers
• How to conduct a review
• BMJ Guidance for peer reviewers

How do we reward our reviewers

Reviewers for the PAMJ-CM can elect to receive a reviewer certificate through the PAMJ-CM Manuscript Hut; the manuscript management and peer review system for all PAMJ-CM Journals. We also allow reviewers to opt to have their review report posted on Publons, a reviewer recognition platform. Lastly, reviewers for the PAMJ-CM can claim for a waiver for article processing charges at their rnext submission to any ofthe PAMJ-CM journals.

The PAMJ-CM is always looking for enthusiastic, experienced and dedicated professionals to review the multiple manuscripts we received every year. By filling this form, you will be automatically added to the PAMJ-CM Reviewer Database. Provide complete information, including a short bio sketch including your past and current experience, your work interest and your current affiliation; this information will help us identify the appropriate manuscript for you to review.

PAMJ-CM peer review process (peer review policy)

1. Key points

What is peer-review

The peer review process is a key element of the scientific process. During the peer review process, the submitted manuscript go through a thorough examination of manuscripts by other scientists (peer) who will read the article to adherence its adherence to the highest level of scientific method and make a motivate recommendation to the managing editors.

The peer-review process in PAMJ-CM

Articles submitted for consideration in the PAMJ-CM go through several process on quality assessment before submission to the peer reviewers.

1. Internal review of the format and adherence to the journal instructions for authors: during this step, the editor in charge of the manuscript will assess the submission's adherence to the journal instructions for authors including the quality of the images and tables, the format of citations and references of the manuscript. The editors in charge of the manuscript may reject the manuscript at this stage if the issues identified are numerous or request the submission of a revision if the issues identified are minor.
2. Internal scientific review by the PAMJ scientific editors: at this stage, scientific editors or qualified members of the editorial board will assess the scientific contents of the manuscript; focusing on all aspects of the manuscript including adherence to reporting guideline such as STROBE, PRISMA, CONSORT, CARE, sound science, adherence to ethical guidelines and compliance with the PAMJ editorial policy. Depending on the outcome of this internal scientific review, the scientific editors may recommend revisions, rejection, or accept the manuscript. Manuscript submitted in the categories: Case report, Images in clinical medicine, Letters to the editors, Comments, Opinions are usually not sent out for external peer-review.
3. External peer review: Each manuscript is sent to 2 to 3 external peer reviewers. The decision to send the manuscript for external review is made on its clinical, policy or public health relevance. The external peer review does not preclude an internal one as the two can be conducted concomitantly. The decision on the manuscript will be based on the outcome of the combined peer review processed (internal and external). All manuscripts submitted in as Research, Reviews, Essay are internally and externally peer reviewed.

External peer review
The PAMJ-CM employs a single-blind peer review process where the author do not know who is the reviewer of his/her submission while the reviewer has all details of the authors of the manuscript and their affiliation.

PAMJ-CM uses online peer review to speed up the publication process. Submitted manuscripts will be sent to peer reviewers, unless they are either out of scope or below threshold for the journal, or the presentation or written English/French is of an unacceptably low standard.

Competing interests from are seek from authors and reviewers. Reviewers declare any competing interests and have to agree to open peer review. This implies that authors and reviewers agreed that if the manuscript is published, the peer review will be made available to the readers. The pre-publication history (initial submission, reviews and revisions) is then posted on the web with the published article.

The article will be available online through PAMJ-CM as browser able (html) and PDF format. The ultimate responsibility for any decision lies with the Editor-in-Chief, to whom any appeals against rejection should be addressed.

Each author will be asked to provide the contact details (including e-mail addresses) of at least 2 potential peer reviewers for their manuscript. These should be experts in their field of study, who will be able to provide an objective assessment of the manuscript. Suggested peer reviewers should not have published with any of the authors of the manuscript within the past five years and should not be members of the same research institution. Members of the Editorial Board of the journal can be nominated. Suggested reviewers will be considered alongside potential reviewers identified by their publication record or recommended by Editorial Board members.

To guide the peer-review process, the PAMJ-CM provides a checklist adapted from the Review Criteria for Research Manuscripts 2nd Edition (AAMC). the Reviewers are asked whether the manuscript is scientifically sound and coherent, how interesting it is and whether the quality of the writing is acceptable. Where possible, the final decision is made on the basis that the peer reviewers are in accordance with one another, or that at least there is no strong dissenting view. In cases where there is strong disagreement either among peer reviewers or between the authors and peer reviewers, advice is sought from a member of the journal's Editorial Board.