Thank you for serving as a peer reviewer for Issues in Law and Medicine A Journal of the Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine.   ILM JAHM uses a double anonymized peer review process which is managed through the Scholar One portal.   The authors are not made aware of the identities of the reviewers.  Similarly, the reviewers are not made aware of the identities of the authors.   This double anonymized review process allows for the most candid and unbiased review possible.

The Scholar One portal offers numerous resources to help reviewers navigate the portal https://support.silverchair.com/scholarone-manuscripts/reviewer/

The most helpful resource for reviewers is this video:  https://vimeo.com/1062021358

Purpose of the Review

For authors, the peer review process for ILM JAHM provides constructive feedback to improve and strengthen the scientific quality of the manuscript.  Peer review insight allows for authors to correct errors and omissions that they may not have seen during the drafting of the manuscript.  The goal is to help authors produce the highest quality papers possible.

For the editors of ILM JAHM the peer review process provides for subject matter expert reviewers to quickly discern the merits of the paper and to communicate candidly to the editors recommendations regarding publishing, such as  publish, minor corrections, major revision or not to publish at all.  The compiled peer review feedback is communicated to the authors so that they can understand the editorial decision made by ILM JAHM.

Questions to be answered by the reviewer

If you are a peer reviewer for the Legal and Ethical manuscripts, please see the questions that you will be asked to answer here.

If you are a peer reviewer for the Biomedical manuscripts, please see the questions that you will be asked to answer here. These double blind peer reviews are not published in order to allow for the most candid interactions for the benefit of the authors.

Declaration of financial conflicts of interest and disclosure of institutional affiliations and potential competing interests

As part of assuring the integrity of the peer review process and to also enhance the transparency of the process for the Editors, ILM JAHM requests that both authors and reviewers complete a financial conflict of interest statement at the time of review of a manuscript.  See Financial Conflict of Interest for Authors and Reviewers. This information is seen only by the Editors of ILM JAHM.

Reasons to Decline to Review a Manuscript

Although the peer review process for ILM is double anonymized, if you recognize that you are employed at the same institution as the authors, or have within the past 3 years been mentors, mentees, close collaborators or joint grant holders, you should not agree to review. Also, you should decline to review a manuscript which is very similar to one you have in preparation or being considered for publication by another journal.

If you decline to review a particular manuscript, it is helpful to make suggestions of possible alternate reviewers with their contact information, so that we can expedite a review as quickly as possible for the authors.

Timeliness

It is important to respond to the invitation to peer review within a week to let the editors know if you are able or not able to undertake the review.  Please inform the journal promptly if your circumstances change and you cannot fulfil your original agreement or if you require an extension.

Confidentiality

ILM JAHM policy is that all reviews are confidential.  Reviewers should respect the confidentiality of the peer review process and refrain from using information obtained during the peer review process for your own or another’s advantage, or to disadvantage or discredit others. Do not involve anyone else in the review of a manuscript (including early career researchers you are mentoring), without first obtaining permission from the journal. The names of any individuals who have helped with the review should be included so that they are associated with the manuscript in the journal’s records and can also receive due recognition for their efforts.

Suspected Ethics Violations

Please promptly contact the journal via the Scholar One portal if you have concerns that misconduct occurred during either the research or the writing and submission of the manuscript, or if you notice substantial similarity between the manuscript and a concurrent submission to another journal or a published article. In the case of these or any other ethical concerns, contact the editor directly and do not attempt to investigate on your own. It is appropriate to cooperate, in confidence, with the journal, but not to personally investigate further unless the journal asks for additional information or advice 

Transferability of peer review

If a manuscript is rejected from one journal and submitted to another, and you are asked to review that same manuscript, you should be prepared to review the manuscript afresh as it may have changed between the two submissions and the criteria for evaluation and acceptance may be different between the two journals. In the interests of transparency and efficiency it may be appropriate to provide your original review for the new journal (with permission to do so from the original journal), explaining that you had reviewed the submission previously and noting any changes.

We thank you again for your commitment to scientific integrity and for your expertise and time which you have committed to the peer review process.

© 2026 Issues in Law & Medicine