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 submissions, as well as attracting and retaining a pool of experienced reviewers.

The Pan African Medical Journal (PAMJ) benefits from the support of a wide range of professionals, from the biomedical and public health fields, who performed critical review of manuscripts. The map below shows the global footprint of these professionals.

Reviewers play an undeniable role in maintaining the quality of scientific publications by freely sharing their time, expertise, resourceful minds, and knowledge. We consistently seek to partner with enthusiastic and experienced professionals to review manuscripts submitted to our journals and help authors turn them into winning publications. To serve as reviewer for the PAMJ, complete the form below and you will be added to the PAMJ Reviewers Database.

PAMJ 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 motivated recommendation to the managing editors.

The peer-review process in PAMJ

At PAMJ, we review all the material we receive. The editors of PAMJ perform 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 also focus on 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 send 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.

Initial internal review
The editor in charge of the manuscript conduct and initial assessment of the manuscript. This assessment aims to ensure that the submission adheres to the journal instructions for authors. The editors may decide at this stage to reject the manuscript.

1. Internal peer review
This review is conducted by a managing editor, a science editor or an associate editor to assess the relevance of the manuscript, its importance to our readership, its scientific quality, and eventually identify obvious or flagrant issues with the submission including in the ethical aspects. The managing editor, science editor, or associate editor (see the journal staff page) can decide at this stage to either reject the manuscript or request revisions. The internal peer review will also focus on the submission adherence to existing scientific writing guidances such as CARE, STROBE, PRISMA, etc.. Submission in the categories Case reports, Images in Clinical Medicine are usually not externally peer-reviewed, but internally reviewed the a managing editor, a science editor, an associate editor or a member of the editorial board.

2. External peer review
The PAMJ 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 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.

A declaration of competing interests is requested from all reviewers through the online peer-review platform.

The ultimate responsibility for any decision lies with the managing editor or science editor in charge of the manuscript to whom any appeals against rejection should be addressed.

Authors can be asked to provide the contact details (including e-mail addresses) of at least 2 potential peer reviewers for their manuscript in case the journal is not able to identify appropriate reviewers because of the complexity or rarity of the topic under study. 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. Suggested reviewers will be considered, as much as possible, alongside potential reviewers identified by their publication record.

To guide the peer-review process, the PAMJ 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.

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

Material for reviewers

To facilitate the assessment of manuscript by peer-reviewers, PAMJ 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.

Other material exists that could be of help to peer-reviewers, we encourage potential peer-reviewers to look at them:

• Equator Network resources for reviewers
• COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers
• How to conduct a review
• BMJ Guidance for peer reviewers
• The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA)
• CARE guidelines

How do we reward our reviewers

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

The PAMJ 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 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.