WATIM Medical & Dental College
Discover your Potential, Shape your Future
Information For Reviewers
1st Update on 12-10-2026
Manuscript for information and instruction of reviewers is as below. The review comments to be submitted by email till start of online upload of reviewer’s comments on reviewer’s proforma.
Rigorous peer-review of all papers that appear in WMDCJ is required by the journal and papers are selected for publication only on the basis of merit and if appropriate. As a reviewer, you are playing a key role in ensuring the quality, consistency, and impact in the research community. For WMDCJ, we normally require all reviewers to complete the review in three weeks from the date when you agreed with the Editor.
We fully appreciate and are very grateful to the fact that you are contributing to WMDCJ on a voluntary basis in addition to your busy academic and research duties. Please keep the Editor informed if the review is delayed or if your circumstance has changed and no longer can return the review within the original timeframe. Please inform Editor of an approximate date that you can complete review.
Reminders of deadlines will be sent from WMDCJ. Any questions you may have about this manuscript or the review process should be directed to the Editor.
The primary objective is to obtain a high quality, fair review of the manuscript. Please submit your completed review on the Reviewer proforma by email.
Your completed review should include the following:
1. Your recommendation:
- Accept without changes – this applies to outstanding papers that can be published as it is or revised papers that have successfully addressed all concerns raised during previous reviews;
- Accept after minor changes – this applies to high-quality papers that require minor improvement on methodology, clarification and improvement on presentation details. In such case a detailed rebuttal will be required from the authors on how the reviewers’ comments have been addressed during re-submission. The papers with minor revision may or may not go to reviewer again and changes can be checked by the Editorial team.
- Accept after major changes – this applies to papers with good quality but require substantial changes to rectify technical problems, introduce additional results, and improve paper structure and presentations; the authors will be given up to 10 weeks (except for papers submitted to special issues/sections, for which the revision period is determined by the corresponding guest editors) to resolve these issues and prepare a detailed rebuttal on how the reviewers’ comments have been addressed during revision; all papers with major revision will always go to another round of external review. Please note the WMDCJ editorial policy that for each paper, only one round of major revision is permitted, if the review recommendation for a revised paper triggers another major revision, the paper will be rejected automatically;
- Reject – this applies to papers that should be rejected without further consideration or should be directed to an alternative journal that may be more suited to the contents of the paper.
2. Comments to be sent to the author(s) if any?
- General Comments – to provide detailed comments about the overall quality (e.g., novelty, technical contribution, significance of results, soundness of conclusion and if there are major methodological drawbacks
- Mandatory Changes – to state clearly what are the mandatory changes you would like to see during the next iteration of the paper. Please be specific, realistic and consistent with your final recommendation. Beyond these, you should recommend either Reject/Resubmit with major modification or rejection without further consideration. Good review comments are always polite and constructive, bearing in mind one of the main purposes of the review process is to help the authors in improving their work;
- Suggested Changes – to state optional changes for authors to consider while revising the manuscript.
3. Any comments to the Editor which will not be sent to the author
Sometimes the reviewers don’t want to give their comments directly to authors. In such case review process can be through editor. Such critiques are substantiated with facts or with suggestions on possible improvements. Be assured that your comments will remain anonymous. If you are recommending mandatory changes, please be clear as to what should be done to make the paper acceptable. If the author chooses to revise the paper again re-review of the manuscript may be sent to see if your concerns have been addressed.
Reviews of manuscripts submitted to WMDCJ are “anonymous peer” reviews, and the identity of every reviewer is carefully protected. By accepting the invitation to serve as a reviewer, you shall protect the copyright and confidentiality of the manuscript and shall not disclose the manuscript or any concerned material to anyone.
The Editorial Office will inform you of the decision taken in the manuscripts you are a reviewer. If you have any questions regarding the manuscript or the review process, please contact the editor who is handling the review process with Manuscript Number referred.
Guidelines for Artificial Intelligence (AI)-Generated Text
The use of content generated by artificial intelligence (AI) in an article (including but not limited to text, figures, images, and code) shall be disclosed in the acknowledgments section of any article submitted. The AI system used shall be identified, and specific sections of the article that use AI-generated content shall be identified and accompanied by a brief explanation regarding the level at which the AI system was used to generate the content.
The use of AI systems for editing and grammar enhancement is common practice and, as such, is generally outside the intent of the above policy. In this case, disclosure as noted above is recommended.