Join the reviewer database of The Practical Medicine and contribute to rigorous, open-access peer review in biomedical and clinical medicine.
Peer review is the cornerstone of scientific publishing. At The Practical Medicine, we depend on the expertise, integrity, and generosity of the global research community to ensure that published science meets the highest standards of rigour and ethics.
We are actively building our reviewer database and warmly welcome applications from researchers at all career stages, including early-career scientists and clinicians. Geographic and disciplinary diversity in our reviewer pool is a priority.
To join our reviewer database, please email weopenaccess@gmail.com with the subject line "Reviewer Application" and include:
Registered reviewers are contacted on an invitation basis when a manuscript matching their stated expertise is submitted. You are under no obligation to accept every invitation.
When reviewing a manuscript, you are asked to evaluate:
Reviewers are asked to submit their reports within 14 days of accepting an invitation. If you require additional time, please notify the editorial office as early as possible. If you are unable to accept an invitation, please decline promptly so that an alternative reviewer can be invited without delay.
All manuscripts are confidential. Reviewers must not share, discuss, or disclose the contents of any manuscript under review with any third party, nor use unpublished information from a manuscript for their own research purposes. These obligations persist after the review is complete.
Before accepting a review invitation, you must consider whether any conflict of interest — financial, professional, or personal — could compromise your ability to provide an objective assessment. If a conflict exists, please decline the invitation and notify the editorial office. Common conflicts include:
A high-quality review is specific, constructive, and evidence-based. We encourage reviewers to structure their reports as follows:
A brief (2–4 sentence) summary of the manuscript's aims and principal findings, in your own words. This demonstrates to the editor that you have read and understood the work.
Substantive issues that must be addressed before the manuscript can be considered for publication. These may include concerns about study design, statistical analysis, interpretation of results, missing controls, or failure to comply with reporting guidelines. Each major comment should be numbered and as specific as possible.
Smaller issues relating to clarity, presentation, referencing, or writing quality. These should also be numbered.
Your overall recommendation to the editor:
| Recommendation | Meaning |
|---|---|
| Accept | The manuscript is suitable for publication with no or minor typographical corrections |
| Minor Revision | The manuscript requires specific, addressable revisions; re-review at editor's discretion |
| Major Revision | Substantial revision is required; the manuscript should be reviewed again after revision |
| Reject | The manuscript has fundamental flaws that cannot be addressed by revision |
Your recommendation is advisory. The final decision rests with the handling editor.
All reviewers are expected to adhere to the ethical guidelines for peer reviewers published by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). Suspected misconduct in a manuscript under review — including fabricated data, plagiarism, or undisclosed conflicts of interest — should be reported to the editorial office at weopenaccess@gmail.com rather than included in the review itself.
For reviewer enquiries, including registration or ethics concerns, please contact weopenaccess@gmail.com with the subject line "Reviewer Enquiry".