• Possible conflict of interest

Referees are requested to notify the editor of the journal if they have a conflict of interest that may positively or negatively affect the refereed report. Referees who are invited to evaluate a paper that has already been reviewed in other journals should not consider this a conflict of interest. In this regard, let us know if this version is improved over the previous version or not.

• Anonymity and confidentiality

HMED Journal performs double-blind refereeing. Reviewers should not provide the identity of authors either in the metadata or in their comments for reports submitted in Microsoft Word format. • Fairness Reviews must be objective and honest and not influenced by:

• Manuscript origin
• Author's political, religious or cultural point of view
• Race, gender, nationality or ethnicity of the author

• Check reports

In the review process, judges should consider the following:

• Depth of research
• Technical quality
• Clarity of presentation
• Authenticity
• Helping the field of medical education
• The report should be objective, accurate, unambiguous and constructive. Comments should be presented with constructive arguments and facts regarding the content of the manuscript.
• Reviewers must consider publication ethics, editorial policies, and author guidelines.
• The manuscript should not be rewritten by referees. Nevertheless, suggestions and corrections to improve the manuscript should be made.

• Timely arbitration reports

HMED strives to provide quality and efficient publishing services to the scientific community as well as authors. Arbitrators are requested to help expedite matters by submitting arbitration reports on time. In case of extension of the review deadline, you can contact the editorial office.

• Judges' recommendations

Novelty/Originality:Is the main question well defined? Do the findings lead to advances in current knowledge?   

Importance:Do the results justify and support all conclusions? Are assumptions and hypotheses correctly identified?   

Presentation quality:Are the analyzes and data presented correctly? Are accepted standards used to present results?

Scientific health:Is the research technically correct and accurately designed? Are the methods, tools, and software adequately described to reproduce the findings by another researcher? Are the analyzes conducted with the most accepted technical standards in mind?

 Interest to readers:Are magazine readers interested in the conclusion? Will the manuscript appeal to a wide readership, or will it only be of interest to a few? (Please refer to the journal area and objectives)

Overall Qualification:Is it useful to publish this study? Does this study provide an advance towards current knowledge? Have the authors addressed a long-standing question about smart experiments?

• More tips

For more guidance on writing a referee report, you can consider the following documents:

• COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers. Publication ethics committee. Available online.
• ICMJE Responsibilities in submission and peer review process