The evaluation of manuscripts submitted to the African Journal of Medical Research must be carried out with rigor, impartiality, and independence, in compliance with confidentiality rules and transparency obligations regarding conflicts of interest.

Upon receipt and processing of submissions, the technical administrator ensures that the documents submitted by the authors comply with the technical standards set by the journal. Once this verification is complete, the file is forwarded to the Editor-in-Chief. The Editor-in-Chief then appoints an associate editor, selected from the Editorial Board based on their expertise in the relevant subject area. The associate editor then selects reviewers—whether members of the reading committee or external experts to analyze the article and submit their report within 3 weeks. Based on the received reviews, the associate editor makes a recommendation to the Editor-in-Chief, who makes the final decision:

• Acceptance (with or without minor revisions)
• Request for major revisions
• Rejection of the manuscript

This evaluation process follows the double-blind principle: the identities of both authors and reviewers are not disclosed.

The reviewer is invited to comment on two main aspects:

• The originality and scientific rigor of the article
• The interest the article may generate among the journal’s readership

Before beginning their review, experts should consult the JARM’s author guidelines, as authors have structured their manuscripts according to these recommendations.

The review report, written in a respectful and professional tone, should ideally be submitted within 3 weeks. It will generally consist of four parts:

• A brief summary of the article (2 to 4 sentences)
• General comments, addressing both form (spelling, syntax, style, text length) and content.
  The reviewer should assess the relevance of the topic, the interest of the manuscript to the readership, and any potential weaknesses, whether major or minor. To structure these comments, the reviewer may be guided by the following questions:
  • Is the scientific content rigorous and relevant?
  • Does the article bring something new and useful?
  • Is the text too long? Can it be shortened without losing clarity?
  • Is the content accessible to both specialists and non-expert readers?
• A final recommendation, choosing from the following options:
  • Acceptance without revision
  • Acceptance with minor revisions
  • Major revision with re-evaluation
  • Rejection
• Specific comments, intended directly for the authors, in the form of questions, suggestions, or clarifications.
  The reviewer should strive to formulate their comments clearly and precisely to facilitate the authors' understanding and implementation of the recommendations.

The JARM review process follows a structured pathway to ensure quality and scientific rigor.

Reviewers are invited to evaluate manuscripts according to the following criteria:

Meeting deadlines is essential to ensure an efficient editorial process.

Becoming a reviewer for JARM offers several professional advantages:

Here are the most frequently asked questions by reviewers: