Reviewer Guidelines
Standards for toxicology peer review excellence.
Peer Review Principles
Peer reviewers provide expert evaluation ensuring published toxicology research meets rigorous standards for scientific validity, methodological appropriateness, and meaningful contribution to the field.
Reviewers evaluate manuscript scientific validity, methodological rigor, statistical appropriateness, and contribution to toxicology knowledge. Constructive feedback should help authors improve their work regardless of recommendation outcome. Reviews should be thorough yet concise, focusing on substantive issues rather than minor stylistic preferences.
Scientific Validity
Assess whether research questions are clearly stated, methodology appropriate to address questions, data sufficient to support conclusions, and interpretation reasonable given results. Identify logical flaws or unsupported claims.
Methodological Rigor
Evaluate experimental design, sample sizes, controls, statistical analyses, and reproducibility potential. Consider whether methods are described with sufficient detail for replication.
Contribution
Consider novelty, significance, and relevance to toxicology field. Does the work advance understanding or provide useful methodological contributions? Is framing appropriate within existing literature?
Reviewers must maintain strict confidentiality of manuscript content. Submitted work must not be discussed, shared, or used without author permission. Reviewers should decline invitations when conflicts of interest exist including competitive relationships, recent collaborations, or personal connections with authors.
Reviewers should report suspected misconduct including plagiarism, data fabrication, or ethical violations to the handling editor. Reviews should be objective and professional, avoiding personal criticism. Constructive tone helps authors respond productively to feedback.
Reviewers should complete evaluations within 21 days of accepting invitations. If unable to meet deadlines, notify editor promptly so alternative reviewers can be sought. Timely reviews support efficient editorial decisions and respect author investment in the submission process.
Declining Reviews: If unable to review due to conflicts, expertise misalignment, or time constraints, decline promptly and suggest alternative reviewers if possible. Quick declines help editors maintain review timelines.
Structure reviews with summary evaluation, major concerns requiring significant attention, minor issues, and overall recommendation. Distinguish between essential revisions and suggestions for improvement. Provide specific, actionable feedback authors can address effectively.
