Skip to main content

What does the review form look like for JMIR Publications journals?

JMIR Editorial Team
Updated

Reviewers must use the review form to submit their feedback. Note that uploads of tracked changes manuscripts, or other files, are not permitted. Therefore, reviewers should ensure to supply all their comments in the review form.

See also: What does the peer review process at JMIR journals look like?

To Access the Review Form

  • Reviewers can directly access the review form through the deep link provided in email. For this reason, do NOT forward or share the peer review invitation email; the URL should not be shared with third parties. If needed, see: I was asked to review but cannot login.
  • You can copy Text of the Review Form to assist in preparing your peer-review report.
  • If you are unavailable to provide a review, we welcome suggestions of expert reviewers. If you decline a review, you would be directed to a form where you can fill in names and email addresses (institutional email addresses are recommended) of alternative expert reviewers.

Peer Review Guidelines and Resources

Reviewers are expected to adhere to ethical best practices. JMIR Publications adheres to the guidelines set out by COPE (Committee on Publication Ethics). 

See How to write a high-quality peer review which offers tips on appropriate comments for a high-quality peer review report, as well as additional references that are useful policy and educational guidance on peer review practices.

Examples of common mistakes in peer review: 

  • Reviewers should avoid suggesting the citation of their own work. This practice can be interpreted as unethical reviewer behavior. 
  • Generative AI use disclosure is mandatory. See Generative AI support in peer review for guidance on disclosure requirements. Use of generative AI that breaches confidentiality of the manuscript and its materials, or undisclosed generative AI use, can be interpreted as unethical peer review behavior.
  • Line edits on spelling errors or copyediting comments are not the role of a peer reviewer, unless the issues are major enough to interfere with the clarity of scientific communication. 
  • JMIR Publications' review form does not accept marked up manuscript files as a part of the peer review process. These will not be accepted via the review form or through the support desk. Use the review form to submit a peer review (see below guidance).

Elements of the Review Form

In addition to the written peer review comments for the author and confidential comments for the editor), additional important elements of the review form include:

  • Overall recommendation: All reviewer comments are recommendations only. The final decision rests with the editor. Editors are by no means obligated to get final approval from all reviewers. It is a common situation that different reviewers have different views on a paper, in which case the final decision rests with the editor.
    • Accept (A) (extremely rare never after the first review round)
    • Minor revisions required (B)
    • Revise & re-review (C)
    • Major revisions & re-review (D) *
    • Reject (E)
  • Priority: Rate the priority (importance) of the paper in terms of the projected impact

* Reviewers can also suggest transfer to other JMIR Publications journals if the paper seems to be insufficiently rigorous for the journal to which it is submitted, but could be considered for alternative journals (see  What does "Suggest Transfer" [to another JMIR journal] on the review form mean?).

We encourage reviewers to keep their review topic interests updated to ensure best matches for future peer review invitations. See where do I enter my reviewing interests?

Text of the Review Form

You may complete the Reviewer Report Form in-browser.

Or, you may copy the text below into a word processor of choice to complete. Please note that when you copy/paste text into the review form, formatting, such as bold, italics, etc, are not retained when you submit your review comments.

There are two main sections for the peer reviewer to complete. We provide recommendations below on what you may include in each section. Also, please review this guidance: How to write a high-quality peer review

I. Comments for the Authors: 

General Comments:

============

...

Specific Comments:

============

Major Comments:

--------------------

1. 

2. 

3. 

...

Minor Comments: 

--------------------

1.

...

II. 1. Confidential Comments for the Editor:

[Tell us what you think and especially comment if the manuscript does not appear to meet one of the JMIR Publications acceptance criteria, e.g.,: the study conducted is ethical; the material is original; prior/related work is discussed and cited appropriate; the writing is clear; the study methods are appropriate; the data are valid; the conclusions are reasonable and supported by the data; the information is important; and the topic is interesting for readership]

 

2. Please note any potential conflicts of interest you have, which would interfere with your objectivity. (required)

 

3. Did you use any generative artificial intelligence tools in preparing this peer review? If yes, please specify which tool(s) were used and to what extent. (required)

 

4. If there are any parts of the manuscript, which you cannot referee because of lack of expertise in this area (e.g., statistics, English), please specify here. If you have suggestions for external reviewers, who could assess the respective part, please add recommendations here:

 

5. Note here if you are interested in writing a commentary about this paper (outline its content).

 

 

Related

Related articles