For reviewers
How to Evaluate
Global Medical Reviews uses double-anonymized external peer review for scholarly articles. Reviewers assess both the main manuscript and relevant supplementary materials. Recommendations are advisory; the handling editor and, where required, the Editor-in-Chief make the final decision.
Structured assessment
The online form covers scope and importance, protocol and reporting, search and selection, data extraction, methodological appraisal, evidence synthesis, certainty, conclusions, presentation and integrity. Each applicable criterion is marked as Meets requirements, Minor concern, Major concern or Not applicable.
Evidence-synthesis priorities
- Protocol registration and justified amendments.
- Complete reproducible searches across appropriate databases and registers.
- Independent screening, data extraction and appraisal.
- Design-appropriate tools such as RoB 2, ROBINS-I, QUADAS-2, PROBAST, ROBIS, AMSTAR 2 or JBI instruments.
- Appropriate synthesis, heterogeneity assessment, sensitivity analyses and treatment of missing or zero-event data.
- GRADE, CERQual or another justified certainty framework.
- Compliance with PRISMA, PRISMA extensions, PRIOR, SANRA or the applicable journal checklist.
Comments to authors
Begin with a concise summary of the manuscript and its principal strengths. Number major and minor comments. Identify the exact section, table, figure or supplementary file concerned. Explain why each requested change matters and distinguish essential revisions from optional suggestions.
Confidential comments to the editor
Use this field for conflicts, suspected misconduct, concerns about anonymization, doubts about data reliability, reasons for rejection that should not be disclosed immediately, or advice on specialist review. Do not contradict the substantive comments sent to authors without explanation.