Hospital Practices and Research

Information for Reviewers

Reviewing a manuscript written by a fellow scientist is a privilege. However, it is also a time-consuming responsibility. Hence, HPR’s Editorial Board, authors, and audiences appreciate your willingness to accept this responsibility and your dedication. HPR adheres to a double-blind peer review process that is rapid, fair, and ensures the high quality of articles published. In so doing, HPR needs reviewers who can provide insightful and helpful comments on submitted manuscripts with a turnaround time of about 8 weeks. Maintaining HPR as a high quality scientific journal depends on reviewers with a high level of expertise and the ability to be objective, fair, and insightful in their evaluation of manuscripts. We hope that the information provided herein will help make your work easier. 

Purpose and Rewards of Reviewers

HPR reviewers’ opinions of manuscripts are invaluable in helping the Editor-in-Chief and the Editorial Board make their decisions. Peer-reviewing will help you keep up with the field and attain new understandings that will improve the quality and value of your own studies.

In appreciation of your invaluable service to HPR, your name will be included in the list we publish on the webpage of reviewers who have reviewed for HPR. Also, reviewers who consistently exhibit excellent reviews and respond promptly to the editorial requests are considered for an invitation to the Editorial Board.

Reviewers’ Responsibilities

If HPR’s Editor-in-Chief has invited you to review a manuscript, please consider the following:

• Manuscripts must be reviewed critically, but constructively; detailed comments about the manuscript must be prepared to help authors improve their work.
• Multiple versions of a manuscript may be reviewed as necessary.
• All required information must be provided within the established deadlines.
• Recommendations must be made to the editor regarding the suitability of a manuscript for publication in the journal.
• Reviewers must declare to the editor any potential conflicts of interest with respect to the authors or the content of a manuscript to be reviewed.
• Possible research misconduct must be reported.
• Alternative reviewers should be suggested if you cannot review the manuscript for any reason.
• All manuscripts must be treated as confidential documents.
• No use of the work described in the manuscript can be made by the reviewer.
• Reviewers must not communicate directly with the authors of a manuscript.
• Reviewers must not identify themselves to the authors of a manuscript.
• Assigned manuscripts must not be passed on to another reviewer.
• Reviewers must ensure that each manuscript reviewed is of high quality and is an original work.
• Reviewers must inform the editor if the assigned manuscript is found to be under consideration in any other publication.
• Review reports must be written in English only.
• Reviewers must author a commentary for publication related to the reviewed manuscript.

What Should be Checked While Reviewing a Manuscript?

• Novelty
• Scientific reliability
• Originality
• Value of the contribution to science
• Addition of new aspects to the existing field of study
• Ethical aspects
• Structure of the article submitted and its relevance to authors’ guidelines
• References provided to substantiate the content
• Grammar, punctuation, and spelling
• Scientific misconduct

How to Review a Manuscript via the HPR Portal?

As the first step in the review process, an invitation email will be sent to the reviewers and the abstract of the manuscript to be reviewed will be provided. The reviewers will then be registered via the HPR portal, and a Username and Password will be automatically sent to them.

To complete the review process and obtain access to the full text of the manuscript, reviewers should login via the HPR portal and follow the instructions provided below:

Please go to your profile--Reviewer Section--Pending Assignments--Click on the manuscript ID--Click on Manuscript Evaluation Form--Complete the form/attach the review file--Make the decision (Reviewer Recommendation) as to Accept, Minor Revisions, Major Revisions, Re-Submit or Reject--Push "Send to Editor" button.