Reviewer Guidelines
Standards for rigorous and constructive peer review.
The Foundation of Scientific Quality
Peer review is the cornerstone of credible research. Your expert evaluation ensures that published work meets the highest standards of scientific validity, clinical relevance, and ethical integrity.
Timeliness
Complete reviews within 14 days of acceptance. If unable to meet deadlines, notify the editor promptly to allow reviewer reassignment.
Objectivity
Evaluate manuscripts based solely on scientific merit. Provide evidence-based critique without personal commentary or bias.
Confidentiality
Treat manuscripts as confidential documents. Never share content, discuss findings, or use ideas without author permission.
Constructiveness
Offer actionable suggestions for improvement. Even for rejections, provide feedback that helps authors strengthen future submissions.
- Summary: Brief overview of the study and its contribution
- Major Comments: Methodological concerns, missing controls, fundamental flaws
- Minor Comments: Clarity issues, typos, figure improvements
- Recommendation: Accept, minor revision, major revision, or reject
Decline to review manuscripts where you have competing interests: institutional ties to authors, ongoing collaboration, financial relationships, or inability to provide unbiased evaluation. When in doubt, consult the handling editor.
Questions About Reviewing?
Contact the editorial office for guidance.
