01Nature, purpose, and scope of this guide

This Guide establishes the responsibilities of external reviewers for PRAXIS. Dominican Journal of Health Research. Its purpose is to ensure independent, rigorous, respectful, and useful assessments of manuscripts from all health-science disciplines, in accordance with Editorial PRAXIS's Institutional Standards for Scientific Integrity, Ethics, and Editorial Governance.

Peer review advises the Director and editorial team in assessing research and other contributions relevant to health practice, education, innovation, management, and policy. The review informs the decision but does not replace it: the final decision belongs to the responsible editor, who also considers the journal's multidisciplinary scope, the integrity of the editorial record, and other legitimate editorial factors.

02Peer-review model

PRAXIS uses external peer review under a strict double-anonymous model. Authors' identities are concealed from reviewers, and reviewers' identities are concealed from authors. Reviewers must not attempt to discover authorship through deliberate searches, metadata tracing, previous titles, preprints, or any other procedure unrelated to the evaluation task.

• If a reviewer reasonably recognizes the authorship from the content, the reviewer may continue only if this creates no conflict. If impartiality could be affected, the reviewer must inform the editor confidentially.
• Do not sign or include identifying information in comments intended for authors.
• Confidential comments to the editor must be entered separately from comments visible to authors.
• PRAXIS may request another evaluation round after major revisions.

03Before accepting an invitation

Before accepting, reviewers must confirm that they have sufficient expertise to assess the manuscript's main aspects, can meet the deadline stated in the OJS invitation, and have no conflict of interest that compromises or appears to compromise their independence.

04Conflicts of interest and recusal

A conflict is not limited to financial interests. Disclose any circumstance that could affect objectivity or create a reasonable perception of bias. Disclosure allows the editor to decide whether the conflict can be managed or requires recusal.

• A close personal relationship, evident hostility, or an active dispute with persons reasonably identified as connected to the work.
• Recent scientific collaboration, direct hierarchical relationship, academic supervision, or relevant institutional dependence.
• Direct competition for funding, patents, scientific priority, a product, a program, or a line of research.
• Financial interest, consulting, employment, ownership interest, or another financial relationship related to the topic.
• An intellectual commitment so strong that it prevents balanced consideration of evidence that contradicts the reviewer's previous position.

05Confidentiality, intellectual property, and use of AI

Submitted manuscripts are confidential communications. Reviewers must not share them, cite them publicly, use unpublished data or ideas for personal benefit, retain unnecessary copies, or disclose their contents before publication.

• Do not enter the complete manuscript or identifiable excerpts into public generative tools.
• Do not use manuscript images, tables, data, or ideas for your own research before publication.
• Delete or destroy local copies when the task ends, unless instructed otherwise by the journal.
• If assistance from a colleague or trainee is needed, obtain prior editorial permission and disclose the contribution; that person is subject to the same confidentiality duties.

06Principles of a high-quality review

07Recommended evaluation workflow

1. Read the complete manuscript initially to understand the question, design, and principal contribution.
2. Confirm that the manuscript belongs to a section accepted by PRAXIS and reasonably meets its formal requirements.
3. Identify the actual study design and the applicable reporting guideline.
4. Evaluate methods, ethics, analysis, risk of bias, results, and consistency between objectives and conclusions.
5. Examine tables, figures, references, supplementary material, registration or protocol, and checklists when applicable.
6. Separate major issues from minor corrections.
7. Draft constructive comments for authors and confidential comments for the editor only when needed.
8. Select a final recommendation consistent with the seriousness of the identified problems.

08General manuscript assessment

09Section-by-section review

10Requirements by PRAXIS editorial section

Currency control: limits synchronized with GA-PRX-001, version 2.0 (2026). If a future discrepancy arises, the current Author Guidelines and applicable institutional standards prevail.

Scientific review must also consider the formal limits currently published by PRAXIS. Minor noncompliance may be correctable; substantive noncompliance must be reported to the editor.

11Methodological and reporting standards by design

Reporting guidelines do not replace methodological judgment. The reviewer must confirm that the selected guideline matches the design and that a completed checklist is not treated as automatic certification of quality.

12Risk of bias, critical appraisal, and certainty of evidence

In reviews and evidence syntheses, reviewers must confirm that the risk-of-bias tool matches the design and question. Arbitrary overall scores must not be accepted when the original instrument assesses separate domains.

13Evaluation of quantitative and statistical methods

• Determine whether sample size was planned or justified and whether losses or missing data could alter the findings.
• Confirm that variables and outcomes are defined before their analyses are interpreted.
• Check consistency among variable type, distribution, and statistical test.
• Assess effect measures and confidence intervals, not only p values.
• Examine assumptions, adjustment for confounding, multiplicity, subgroup analyses, and sensitivity analyses when applicable.
• Check consistency among numbers in the text, tables, figures, and participant flow diagram.
• Do not require statistical significance as a condition of publication. Negative or inconclusive results may be scientifically valuable.
• Identify improper causal interpretation in designs not suited to causal inference.

14Evaluation of qualitative research

• Check coherence among the question, paradigm or approach, sampling strategy, data-generation technique, and analysis.
• Require sufficient description of the context, participants, and researcher-participant relationship.
• Assess transparency of coding, development of categories or themes, and mechanisms supporting credibility or reflexivity.
• Confirm appropriate use of quotations or empirical evidence to support interpretations.
• Consider saturation, information sufficiency, or another criterion compatible with the chosen approach.
• Check consistency among qualitative findings, discussion, and conclusions, without treating isolated frequencies as substitutes for meaning.

15Evaluation of systematic reviews and meta-analyses

• Confirm a prior protocol and, when eligible in health research, prospective PROSPERO registration with a verifiable CRD number and date.
• Compare objectives, eligibility, outcomes, and synthesis with the registration or protocol and require explanation of material changes.
• Verify databases, final search date, complete strategies, controlled and free-text vocabulary, filters, gray literature, and deduplication.
• Confirm selection and extraction by independent reviewers or require justification for alternative procedures.
• Assess whether the risk-of-bias tool matches the included designs and whether domain-level judgments are presented.
• For meta-analysis, review effect measure, model, heterogeneity, missing data, subgroups or meta-regression, sensitivity, missing evidence, and software.
• Verify consistency among the PRISMA diagram, text, tables, appendices, and final number of studies.
• When GRADE is used, confirm that certainty is assessed by outcome and every judgment is justified.

16Ethics, participants, and registration

Formal ethics approval does not remove the reviewer's responsibility to identify visible ethical problems. Serious concerns must be communicated confidentially to the editor.

17Scientific integrity: what to do when misconduct is suspected

Reviewers must not investigate independently or accuse authors in visible comments. They should describe observable facts and communicate the concern confidentially to the editor, who will manage the case under the Institutional Standards and COPE guidance.

18Writing the review report

The report must be specific enough for the editor to understand the basis of the recommendation and for authors to respond point by point.

19Major and minor comments

Do not artificially divide one issue into dozens of minor comments. Grouping related observations supports an orderly response and reduces editorial noise.

20Final recommendation

21Second review round

• Review the authors' response and determine whether each comment was addressed substantively.
• Do not introduce entirely new demands unless revision reveals an important problem that was not previously visible.
• Accept justified responses even when authors do not adopt the reviewer's exact proposed solution.
• Focus on whether major problems were resolved and whether the revisions introduced new errors.
• Maintain the same standards of respect, confidentiality, and independence used in the first round.

22Rapid rating matrix to support the recommendation

This matrix is advisory and does not produce an automatic acceptance score. Final judgment must be qualitative and reasoned.

Suggested scale: 1 = Poor | 2 = Insufficient | 3 = Adequate with corrections | 4 = Good | 5 = Very strong

23Final reviewer checklist before submitting the report

☐ I have confirmed that I can evaluate the manuscript without a relevant conflict of interest.

☐ I have maintained confidentiality and have not shared the manuscript outside the authorized system.

☐ I have not used AI or external services with the manuscript without prior authorization from PRAXIS.

☐ I have not attempted to identify the authors.

☐ My review focuses on scientific content, not personal or institutional characteristics.

☐ I have identified the actual design and the applicable reporting guideline.

☐ I have evaluated methods, analysis, ethics, results, discussion, tables or figures, and references.

☐ For a systematic review, I have checked the protocol or registration, PRISMA, search, risk of bias, and synthesis.

☐ When applicable, I have verified prospective trial registration and consistency with the protocol.

☐ I have distinguished major from minor issues.

☐ I have avoided offensive, sarcastic, or disparaging comments.

☐ I have not required citations to my own work except when objectively and scientifically necessary.

☐ I have communicated possible integrity concerns only to the editor when appropriate.

☐ My final recommendation is consistent with the issues described.

☐ I have not promised acceptance or communicated rejection directly to the authors.

24Suggested review-report template

25Recognition, performance, and training of reviewers

Editorial PRAXIS may recognize reviewers' collaboration without compromising double anonymity or the confidentiality of specific editorial records. It may also assess the quality, timeliness, usefulness, and conduct of review reports. Repeated superficial, late, disrespectful, or unethical reviews may result in suspension of future invitations.

Continuing reviewer education is part of the institutional quality system. Editorial PRAXIS may update this Guide when journal policies, Institutional Standards, legislation, or applicable international standards change.

26Normative sources and reference documents

1. Editorial PRAXIS. Institutional Standards for Scientific Integrity, Ethics, and Editorial Governance. NIIEGE-PRX-001. Current version.
2. PRAXIS. Dominican Journal of Health Research. Guidelines for reviewers and instructions for authors [Internet]. 2026 [cited 2026 Aug 16]. Available from: https://revistapraxis.org/index.php/praxis/guia-revisores
3. Committee on Publication Ethics. Ethical guidelines for peer reviewers [Internet]. COPE; [cited 2026 Aug 16]. Available from: https://publicationethics.org/guidance/guideline/ethical-guidelines-peer-reviewers
4. International Committee of Medical Journal Editors. Recommendations for the conduct, reporting, editing, and publication of scholarly work in medical journals [Internet]. Updated January 2026 [cited 2026 Aug 16]. Available from: https://www.icmje.org/recommendations/
5. EQUATOR Network. Reporting guideline resources for health research [Internet]. [cited 2026 Aug 16]. Available from: https://www.equator-network.org/
6. PRISMA. PRISMA 2020 and extensions [Internet]. [cited 2026 Aug 16]. Available from: https://www.prisma-statement.org/
7. CONSORT-SPIRIT. CONSORT 2025 and SPIRIT 2025 [Internet]. 2025 [cited 2026 Aug 16]. Available from: https://www.consort-spirit.org/
8. JBI. Critical appraisal tools [Internet]. [cited 2026 Aug 16]. Available from: https://jbi.global/critical-appraisal-tools
9. Risk of Bias. Risk of Bias tools: RoB 2, ROBINS-I, ROBINS-E, ROB-ME [Internet]. [cited 2026 Aug 16]. Available from: https://www.riskofbias.info/
10. GRADE Working Group. GRADE Working Group [Internet]. [cited 2026 Aug 16]. Available from: https://www.gradeworkinggroup.org/