SQUMJ Guide for Reviewers


In our commitment to quality improvement and timeliness, we are seeking reviewers in all specialties. Reviewers must be willing to share our commitment and achieve a turnaround time of 3 weeks in most cases. 

If you are interested in reviewing manuscripts for the Sultan Qaboos University Medical Journal (SQUMJ), we want to hear from you! Please send your name, qualifications, address, e-mail address and up to three specialty interests to or For more information, please contact us by e-mail or by phone at (+968) 2414 3457.



The Editorial Office of the Journal and the SQUMJ Subject Editors check each submitted manuscript for general quality, suitability and whether it conforms to the accepted format. All manuscripts are also checked for plagiarism; if discovered, immediate strong action is taken. If found prima facie acceptable, the manuscript will be sent out for double-blind international review. All reviewers treat the manuscript with the strictest confidentiality and must declare any conflict of interests. Substantial delays can be avoided if authors comply with these Guidelines. Comments and suggestions from the reviewers are conveyed to the authors via the online system. Revised manuscripts are subject to further review by the original reviewers and the responsible Subject Editors. The final decision as to acceptance or rejection lies with the Editor-in-Chief, with advice from the SQUMJ Editorial Board and Sultan Qaboos University's Academic Publications Board.



Reviewers are invited by email to review manuscripts within their realm of expertise. Reviewers access the full text of a manuscript on Editorial Manager, using a standard assessment form and with our guide for reviewers. The reviewer recommends whether to accept, reject, or accept a manuscript with changes. The completed review form includes sections for individualised comments and recommendations for changes

SQUMJ follows a double-blind peer review policy. As such, names of reviewers are not released to the authors, and names of authors are not released to reviewers.

There is no financial remuneration for reviewing manuscripts, but many professionals find participation in the process of peer review extremely rewarding because they appreciate the opportunity to review and make comments on research articles, review articles, and case reports in their area of expertise and to enhance the quality of papers published in the medical literature. There is no minimum number of reviews required, and reviewers may decline to review at any time.



Reviewers of articles submitted to SQUMJ are eligible to receive one category 1 continuing professional development (CPD) credit per review from the Oman Medical Specialty Board (OMSB). Please apply for credits at:  You may have to register as a new user if you have not already done so. 

The OMSB CPD accreditation system may require a registration number (OMSB/CPD/6029/12.14). They may also require an official letter confirming that your article has been published with SQUMJ; we will provide this upon request. Credits can only be awarded if the article has been published in the same year as your application. This means that you must apply for 2017 credits before February 2018. The SQUMJ Editorial Office cannot answer any queries regarding CPD credits beyond provision of the official letter confirming publication. If you have any queries regarding CPD credits, please contact CPD Oman directly at


- A link to the review copy of the Manuscript
- A link to the Assessment Form 

Here is an example of the guidelines for an orginal study. Specific guidelines are provided with each kind of manuscript. 

Is the topic of interest and relevant for the Journal?

Does the title reflect the content of the article?

Is the work original, new and important? If not, please give references

Does it contain the essential information of the article and cover the various aspects of the work: objective, methods, results and conclusion?

Advances in Knowledge 
Has this section been included? Does it clearly state how the paper contributes to Advances in Knowledge? This section should be max. 250 words

Application to Patient Care
Has this section been included? Does it clearly state the paper’s Application to Patient Care? This section should be max. 250 words

Is the study rationale adequately described?

- Are the objectives and hypothesis clearly stated? Is the work relevant and new? Have significant part of the paper already been published elsewhere?

- Is the work scientifically interesting, rigorous, accurate and correct? 
- Is the study design appropriate for the objectives?
- Is the sample size appropriate and adequately justified?
- Is the sampling technique appropriate and adequately described?
- How well are the methods and instruments of data collection described?
- How well are the techniques to minimize bias/errors documented?

Ethical considerations 
- For studies including human or animal subjects, has the study been approved by the relevant research and ethics committee? 
- Has consent been obtained for studies including patient data? 
- Have any conflicts of interest (financial or other) been clearly stated?

Analysis and Results 
- Did the study test the hypothesis?Is the study design appropriate for the objectives?
- Was the study adequately controlled?Is the sample size appropriate and adequately justified?
- Are the methods of data analysis appropriate? Is the sampling technique appropriate and adequately described?
- Are the findings presented logically?How well are the methods and instruments of data collection described?
- Are the diagrams, tables, figures and captions appropriate and clear?How well are the techniques to minimize bias/errors documented?

- Are appropriate statistical methods used? 
- Is the statistical significance well documented (e.g. as confidence intervals or p-values) or correlation coefficient)? Is it correct and appropriate?

- Is the discussion relevant to the study? Is it easy to understand and read? Is the work set well in the context of previous work?
- How well are the key findings discussed?
- To what extent have differences or similarities with other studies been discussed and reasons for these given?
- Are the implications of the findings clearly articulated?

- Do the results justify the conclusion/s? 
- Is the conclusion carefully written, summarizing what has been learnt and why it is interesting and useful?

- Are they appropriate and relevant?
- Are they up to date?
- Are there any errors

Writing Style
- Is the overall balance and structure of the paper good? 
- Is the paper clearly written? 
- Are there language errors?
- Is the paper presented logically (e.g. correct information in each section, logical flow of arguments)?