Reviewer Guidelines
Standards for peer review in diagnostic pathology publication.
Excellence in Scientific Evaluation
Peer reviewers are essential to maintaining JCDP publication quality. These guidelines ensure consistent, constructive reviews that advance diagnostic pathology science.
Scientific Validity
Assess methodology, data presentation, and interpretation accuracy in diagnostic pathology studies.
Clinical Relevance
Evaluate practical implications and utility for pathologists and clinical laboratories.
Originality
Assess contribution to diagnostic knowledge and advancement beyond existing literature.
Provide specific, actionable comments that help authors improve their work. Identify strengths alongside weaknesses. Suggest concrete improvements rather than vague criticisms. Frame feedback professionally and respectfully.
Confidentiality: Manuscripts under review are confidential documents. Do not share content or discuss submissions outside the review process. Report any conflicts of interest promptly.
Complete reviews within agreed timeframes, typically 2-3 weeks. If delays are unavoidable, notify the editorial office promptly. Reliable, timely reviews maintain publication efficiency and author relationships.
- Accept: Ready for publication with minor corrections
- Minor Revision: Small improvements needed, no re-review required
- Major Revision: Substantial changes needed, re-review warranted
- Reject: Fundamental issues preventing publication
When reviewing revised manuscripts, focus on whether authors adequately addressed previous concerns. New issues may arise but prioritize evaluating response to prior feedback.
Report suspected misconduct including fabrication, plagiarism, or duplicate publication. Decline invitations when conflicts exist. Provide unbiased evaluation based solely on scientific merit and diagnostic relevance.
