Review Guideline

Before accepting or declining an invitation to review a manuscript for Meditory: The Journal of Medical Laboratory, reviewers are requested to carefully consider the following aspects:

1. Relevance to Expertise
   Reviewers should ensure that the manuscript falls within their area of expertise. Please accept the invitation only if you have sufficient knowledge and expertise to provide an objective, constructive, thorough, and scientifically sound evaluation.

2. Conflict of Interest
   Reviewers must disclose any actual or potential conflicts of interest before accepting a review invitation. These may include personal, professional, financial, institutional, or collaborative relationships that could reasonably affect, or be perceived to affect, the objectivity of the review.

   If a potential conflict exists, reviewers should inform the editorial team so that the editor can determine whether the review assignment remains appropriate.

3. Availability of Time
   Peer review requires careful reading, critical evaluation, and constructive feedback. Reviewers should ensure that they have sufficient time to complete the review within the specified deadline, normally within 3–6 weeks.

   If additional time is required, reviewers should contact the editorial team as soon as possible. Timely completion of reviews helps maintain an efficient and fair editorial process.

4. Confidentiality
   All manuscripts submitted for review must be treated as confidential documents. Reviewers must not share, distribute, discuss, reproduce, or use any unpublished information contained in the manuscript without authorization from the editorial team.

   Reviewers must also protect the confidentiality of authors and manuscript materials in accordance with Meditory's double-blind peer-review policy.

5. Use of Artificial Intelligence (AI)
   Reviewers must protect the confidentiality of submitted manuscripts when using artificial intelligence (AI) or AI-assisted technologies. Manuscripts, figures, tables, supplementary files, or other confidential materials must not be uploaded to generative AI systems when doing so may compromise confidentiality, intellectual property, or data protection.

   AI tools must not replace the reviewer's independent scientific judgment. Reviewers remain fully responsible for the accuracy, objectivity, integrity, and content of their review reports.

6. Prompt Response to the Review Invitation
   Reviewers should respond to the review invitation as soon as possible. Delays in accepting or declining an invitation may unnecessarily prolong the editorial and peer-review process.

   If unable to undertake the review, reviewers should promptly inform the editor. Where appropriate, reviewers may recommend alternative qualified experts in the relevant field. The final selection and invitation of reviewers remain the responsibility of the editorial team.