DawnMed Journal of Medical Science is committed to upholding high standards of peer review. Our peer review process is essential to ensure the scientific quality and integrity of the research we publish. We value the contribution of our reviewers and expect them to adhere to the following guidelines and principles: 

1. Review process 

Double-blind review: Reviewers will evaluate manuscripts without knowledge of the author(s)’ identity, and authors will not know the identities of the reviewers. This process ensures objectivity and fairness in evaluations. 

Timely review: Reviewers are expected to complete their reviews within the specified time frame. If unable to meet this deadline, reviewers should notify the editorial office promptly to avoid delays in the publication process. 
Confidentiality: Manuscripts under review are confidential and should not be shared or discussed with others, except for those who are directly involved in the review process (e.g., co-reviewers, editors). 
Constructive feedback: Reviewers are expected to provide constructive and specific feedback that can help authors improve their manuscripts. Criticisms should be respectful and focused on the research quality, methodology, and clarity of the manuscript. 

2. Ethical responsibilities 

Objectivity: Reviewers must provide unbiased and objective feedback. Personal, professional, or financial conflicts of interest that could affect the review process must be disclosed. 
Conflict of interest: If a reviewer has a potential conflict of interest (e.g., collaboration with the authors, personal or financial relationships), they must recuse themselves from reviewing the manuscript. The editorial board will assign an alternative reviewer in such cases. 
Plagiarism and research integrity: Reviewers should alert the editorial team if they suspect plagiarism, data fabrication, or any form of research misconduct. They should evaluate the validity and integrity of the data presented in the manuscript. 

3. Review Criteria 

Reviewers should evaluate the manuscript based on the following key criteria: 

Originality: Is the research original and does it contribute significantly to the field? 
Quality of research: Are the methodology, experimental design, and statistical analysis appropriate and rigorous? 
Relevance and significance: Does the study address an important research question that will impact clinical practice or scientific understanding? 
Clarity and presentation: Is the manuscript clearly written and well-structured? Are the findings and conclusions well-supported by the data? 
References and citations: Are the references up-to-date and relevant to the manuscript’s content? 

4. Confidentiality and non-disclosure 

All manuscript materials and reviews should be kept confidential. Reviewers must not disclose or discuss the manuscript with others during or after the review process. Any sensitive information gained through the review process should not be used for personal advantage. 

5. Acknowledgment and Rewards 

Reviewers will be acknowledged for their contribution to the journal in each issue and, if requested, may receive a certificate of appreciation. 
Reviewers may also be invited to join the editorial board or be considered for editorial roles based on the quality and consistency of their reviews. 

6. Reviewer’s Rights 

Reviewers have the right to refuse to review a manuscript if they feel they do not have the appropriate expertise or time to conduct a thorough evaluation.