Reviewers Guide

THE SCHOLAR: JOURNAL OF HEALTH SCIENCES
An official publication of the Federal University of Health Sciences Azare, Bauchi State, Nigeria
The Scholar Review Process

THE SCHOLAR follows a laid down peer review process to guarantee Journal quality. Our
review process is detailed below.

Editor assessment
On submission, a manuscript usually undergoes editorial review to evaluate its suitability for
THE SCHOLAR, authenticity, ethical appropriateness, completeness, and whether it is formatted
correctly. If the manuscript doesn’t pass this initial check, it is rejected by the editor.

The peer review.
The review process of THE SCHOLAR is an editor-mediated double-blind process. When a
manuscript has passed the initial editorial assessment, it is sent out for peer review. The editor
identifies and contacts at least two researchers who are experts in the topic and asks them to
review the paper within a stipulated period (2 -4 weeks).
Reviewers are given evaluation criteria (THE SCHOLAR Review form) which they follow to
objectively evaluate the manuscript for Originality, Novelty, Relevance, Satisfactoriness of
methodology, data analysis, Presentation, and Discussion of the results. The reviewers are also
asked to provide comments to the author if any and may also provide feedback confidentially to
the Editor.
On receiving the reviewers' detailed reports with comments and recommendations on the
manuscript, THE SCHOLAR editorial board study them and decides to either publish the
manuscript as it is, Recommend minor revision, Major revision, Resubmission or Rejection of
the Manuscript.
The Editor-in-Chief, then makes available the reviews, comments to the author, and the editorial
board decision on the manuscript to the author(s).
If the manuscript requires revisions, then the author(s) will be advised to follow the reviewers’.
comments to revise the manuscript and submit it within two weeks.
Upon acceptance, the manuscript will be formatted per THE SCHOLAR style and Galley Proof
will be sent to the author(s) for proofreading before publication. If the manuscript is rejected, the
reviewer/s comment/s are sent to the author(s) to help them in improving their manuscript for
possible submission to another journal.

THE SCHOLAR works hard to progress manuscripts through the peer review process as quickly
as possible. The average interval between submission of a manuscript and final decision is about
2-3 months.

THE SCHOLAR Guide to Reviewers
All Reviewers should follow the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) guideline for peer
review (available at https://publicationethics.org/resources/guidelines/cope-ethical-guidelines-
peer-reviewers) to assess the validity of the articles under consideration to make a high-quality
review.
Our review process is double-blind.
As a reviewer we expect you to

1. Assess the suitability of the paper for THE SCHOLAR. This should be sent as
“Confidential Comments to Editor.”

2. Assess the study as a whole, including justification, objectives, design, and
conclusions.
3. Carefully critique the article and graciously offer suggestions on how to improve
it.
4. Ensure your comments are objective, thorough, and numbered for ease of
reference by the authors.
5. Give us an overall recommendation (Reject, Major Revision, Minor Revision, or
Accept)
6. Promptly send us your review comments (within the stipulated time which is 2-4
weeks)

Reviewers should Please consider the following points in their assessment of the manuscript.
1. Does the paper have all the key elements: abstract, keywords, introduction,
methodology, results, discussions, conclusions, and references? Consider each key
element:
2. Is the English satisfactory? Are there grammatical and/or syntax errors?
3. Title – Is the title appropriate?
4. Keywords – Are the keywords appropriate?
5. Abstract – Does it convey the content of the paper?
6. Introduction – Is the relevant literature used to justify the study, by clearly
outlining the problem under investigation – stating what is known and the gaps
the work is aiming to fill? Is the research question/the aims of the study clearly
described?
7. Methodology – Is the study design clear and appropriate to answer the research
question/achieve the research objective? Have patient recruitment/data extraction,
study protocols, and analyses been concisely and adequately stated and are they
appropriate in the context of the research question/objective of the study? Are the
equipment and materials used adequately described? Does the paper contain
sufficient information to replicate the research?
8. Results – Are the analyses conducted using the appropriate statistical method?
Are the results relevant to the research question? If not, what other results would
be more informative for the reader?
9. Discussions – Is there an adequate explanation of what the Author(s) discovered
in the research in the context of what is already known? Were the
implications/significance of the research findings explained?
10. Conclusion – Are the conclusions based on the results of the research? Do the
conclusions explain the significance of the results obtained?
11. References – Are there any important works that have not been included,
especially a recent meta-analysis? Are the references accurate and recent?
12. Are there any important aspects of the whole manuscript that are missing from the
abstract? (the abstract and the complete manuscript should convey the same take-
home message to the reader).

You can use THE SCHOLAR review form on the journal website to help in your review