Reviewer Guidelines
Guidance for reviewers assessing pain medicine manuscripts.
Journal at a Glance
ISSN: 2688-5328
DOI Prefix: 10.14302/issn.2688-5328
License: CC BY 4.0
Peer reviewed open access journal
Scope Alignment
Acute and chronic pain, neuropathic pain, interventional pain care, rehabilitation, palliative medicine, and translational therapeutics. We prioritize validated clinical and mechanistic evidence.
Publishing Model
Open access, single blind peer review, and rapid publication after acceptance and production checks. Metadata validation and DOI registration are included.
IJP reviewers evaluate methodological rigor, data transparency, and clinical relevance in submissions. Reviews should be constructive, evidence based, and focused on improving the manuscript.
- Clear research question and scope alignment
- Transparent clinical methods and diagnostic criteria
- Appropriate analytical methods and validation
- Interpretation aligned with clinical outcomes
- Reproducibility and data sharing considerations
Assess Scope
Confirm alignment with pain medicine focus.
Evaluate Methods
Check clinical protocols and validation.
Review Results
Assess clarity, significance, and limitations.
Provide Feedback
Offer actionable, respectful guidance.
- Maintain confidentiality of manuscripts
- Declare conflicts of interest
- Report ethical or data integrity concerns
- Avoid using unpublished data for personal gain
- Assess clarity of clinical endpoints and outcome definitions.
- Verify methodological rigor and appropriate statistical analysis.
- Check adherence to reporting guidelines such as CONSORT or STROBE.
- Comment on clinical relevance and translational impact.
- Review data availability and reproducibility statements.
- Confirm ethical approvals and patient consent disclosures.
- Provide constructive feedback and prioritize major issues.
- Indicate whether revisions can be addressed within the stated timeline.
- Check that diagnostic criteria and staging are clearly defined.
- Assess whether safety monitoring and adverse events are reported.
- Review clarity of imaging or laboratory protocols used.
- Recommend clarifications for cohort selection or exclusion criteria.
- Evaluate interpretation of findings against existing evidence.
- Suggest improvements to data presentation and figure clarity.
- Assess whether inclusion and exclusion criteria are clearly justified.
How long should a review take?
Most reviews are expected within 9 to 12 days.
Can I decline a review?
Yes. Inform the editor promptly so alternatives can be found.
What if data are missing?
Recommend revisions or request clarifications.
IJP is committed to rigorous, transparent publishing in pain medicine and multidisciplinary care. We emphasize reproducible clinical methods, clear reporting of diagnostic criteria, and ethical compliance across all article types.
The editorial office supports authors, editors, and reviewers with clear guidance and responsive communication. For questions about scope or workflow, contact [email protected].
We encourage continuous improvement in reporting practices and share updates that help the community maintain high standards in pain management research and clinical practice.
Become a Reviewer
Support rigorous pain management research through peer review.