MEDISAINS

MANUSCRIPT REVIEW TEMPLATE

I. Identifiers

Initial Name of Reviewer :

Date manuscript sent: :
Date manuscript returned: :
Title of manuscript: :

II. Specific Details

1. is the title of the informative Yes No Not sure
Please comment areas for improvements:

2. the abstract is a clearly Yes No Not sure

Please comment areas for improvements:

3. Is there strong justification to Yes No Not sure

carry out this study? Were
gaps justifying the study
clearly delineated by reviewing
contemporary evidences?
Please comment areas for improvements:

4. Did authors presented Yes No Not sure

objectives in measurable and
specific terms?
Please comment areas for improvements:

5. Did authors chose the right

methods for:
 Data collection Yes No Not sure
Please comment areas for improvements:

 Data analysis Yes No Not sure

Please comment areas for improvements:

 Were results presented in Yes No Not sure

a logical order
Please comment areas for improvements:

 Were results addressed Yes No Not sure

the objectives of the study
Please comment areas for improvements:
 6. is the citation a consistent Yes No Not sure
Please comment areas for improvements:

7. Did authors discussed the Yes No Not sure

results well enough
(interpretation of findings,
comparison with similar
findings etc)
Please comment areas for improvements:

8. Based on your assignment of this manuscript, what is

your recommendation? please check as appropriate
 Accept in present form
 Accept with minor
revision, as suggested
 Not acceptable requires
major revisions
 Not acceptable

III. Quick Review Checklist

No Review checklist Score 1-5
1. Was the paper easy to follow and does it have a logical
flow?
2. Does the English grammar, punctuation or spelling need to
be corrected?
3. Does the paper serve broader public health interest?
4. Do the title and abstract cover the main aspects of the work?
5. Are the objectives/questions/hypothesis novel? Does the
study provide an advance in the field?
6. Are methods clear and appropriate in terms of design,
addressing the objectives?
7. Were the analysis used appropriate to the study design?
8. Were the objectives addressed?
9. Were data clearly and appropriately presented?
10. Were results properly interpreted in relation to existing
evidences?
11. Were conclusions in line with the findings?
12. Are references used relevant and 75% of primary sources
(journals)
Average

Meanings of the score

1. Outstanding : Discretionary revision to improve the overall quality of the
manuscript but does not affect the scientific validity of the study.
2. Excellent : Minor Revisions to adhere to scientific reporting standards and
few specific issues with the document
3. Very good : Major Revisions needed consisting measurement,
presentation of results, measurements, contemporary reference,
contradictions between objective, result, discussion and
conclusion
4. Good : Needs to be re-written and resubmitted
5. Poor/flawed : Reject

Reviewer signature

(…………………….)