GUIDELINES FOR PEER REVIEWERS

Majalah Anestesia & Critical Care (MACC) is a double-blind peer-reviewed, open-access journal published quarterly by the Indonesian Society of Anesthesiology and Intensive Care (PERDATIN). We are committed to upholding the highest standards of publication ethics and quality. To achieve this, we rely on the invaluable expertise and dedication of our reviewers.

The peer-review process is crucial for ensuring the scientific integrity and clarity of the articles we publish. As a reviewer for MACC, you play a key role in providing constructive feedback that helps authors improve their work and assists editors in making fair publication decisions. The identities of both the reviewer and author are kept confidential throughout the process to ensure an objective and unbiased assessment.

We strongly recommend that all reviewers familiarize themselves with the ethical guidelines provided by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). Please read the complete guidelines at: https://publicationethics.org/resources/guidelines/cope-ethical-guidelines-peer-reviewers

 

Aspects to Consider in Your Review

When conducting a review for MACC, please consider the following key aspects of the manuscript. Your evaluation should be based on the journal's scope, which includes all aspects of anesthesiology, critical care, perioperative care, and pain management.

 

1. Originality and Plagiarism

• Is the work original and authentic?
• Does the manuscript contain any plagiarized material or have the findings been published elsewhere? The manuscript must represent the authors' own work.

2. Methodology and Reproducibility

• Is the study design appropriate to answer the research objectives?
• Are the methods described in sufficient detail (including materials, equipment, and study protocols) to allow another researcher to reproduce the experiments or study?
• Are controls used appropriately in experiments?
• Is the minimum sample size justified and in accordance with the research objectives?

3. Ethical Considerations

• Is the information regarding ethical approval (from relevant committees) and informed consent from subjects clearly stated in the manuscript? This is mandatory for research involving humans or animals.

4. Presentation and Language

• Is the manuscript written in clear, appropriate, and grammatically correct academic English?
• Is the abstract comprehensive and does it accurately represent the entire idea of the article?
• Is the use of tables and/or figures clear, and do they avoid unnecessary repetition of the narrative text?
• Do the references and citation style adhere to the journal's guidelines?

5. Analysis and Interpretation of Results

• Are the statistical analyses used in the study appropriate and correctly interpreted?
• Does the discussion fairly compare the study's results with relevant previous findings?
• Are the study's limitations explicitly mentioned and discussed by the authors?
• Is the conclusion logically inferred based on the study results and discussion presented?

 

Important Points to Address in Your Review Report

To provide a structured and helpful review, please ensure your report addresses the following points:

• Overall Structure: Is the manuscript written comprehensively and logically? If not, please suggest specific improvements.
• Background and Objectives: Is the background of the study in accordance with the issues in the field? Are the objectives clear and specific?

• Supporting Evidence: Are adequate proofs and data provided to support the authors' declarations and conclusions?

• Use of Generative AI: The peer review process for MACC is founded on principles of confidentiality, critical thinking, and human expertise. To uphold these principles, reviewers are advised not to use Generative AI or AI-assisted technologies to generate all or part of the review report.

 

Decision and Recommendations

At the end of the reviewing process, you will be asked to provide a recommendation to the editor. Your options will typically include: Accept, Minor Revisions, Major Revisions, or Reject. Regardless of your final decision, you must provide explicit, constructive reasons for your recommendation in your report to the authors. This ensures authors receive supportive suggestions to improve their work, even if the manuscript is not accepted in its current form.

 

Confidentiality and Conflicts of Interest

• Privacy Statement: The peer-review process for MACC is strictly confidential. You must not disclose any information about the manuscript or your review to anyone before the article is published.

• Consulting Others: Please consult the Editor-in-Chief before seeking help from another colleague in the peer-review process.

• Conflicts of Interest: If you have any potential competing interests (financial, personal, professional, or intellectual) that could affect your impartiality, you must immediately declare them to the editor. You may not use any knowledge gained from the reviewing process for your personal advantage.