JRD provides reviewers with tools and guidance to support efficient, high quality reviews. Resources focus on evaluating clinical methods, data transparency, and clinical relevance.

• Verify that study design is described clearly
• Check that diagnostic definitions align with study objectives
• Assess whether data and code access statements are complete
• Recommend clarifications for clinical interpretation
• 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.
• Check consistency between reported outcomes and study objectives.
• Review whether subgroup analyses are pre specified or exploratory.
• Comment on transparency of statistical software and version reporting.
• Flag concerns about data leakage or improper comparator selection.
• Recommend clarifying clinical significance versus statistical significance.
• Assess the adequacy of sample size and statistical power.

Reviewers can contact the editorial office for clarification on review criteria or conflicts. Email [email protected] for assistance.

JRD is committed to rigorous, transparent publishing in respiratory medicine and pulmonary science. 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 respiratory and critical care research.