Reviewer Role

Reviewer Role

Contribution to Editorial Decisions: Peer review assists the editor in making editorial decisions and through the editorial communications with the author may also assist the author in improving the paper.
Standards of Objectivity: Reviews should be conducted objectively. Personal criticism of the author is inappropriate. Reviewers should express their views clearly with supporting arguments.
Disclosure and Conflict of Interest: Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not used for personal advantage. Reviewers should not consider manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies, or institutions connected to the papers under consideration.

Reviewers' Guidelines

Step by step guide to reviewing a manuscript

When invited to peer review, you'll receive the manuscript's abstract to help you decide whether to accept the invitation and conduct the review. Respond promptly to avoid delays and declare any potential conflicts of interest early. Editors rely on timely, constructive feedback for decision-making. Provide clear, helpful comments—vague or unhelpful ones offer little value. Your review should include comments to the authors and possibly confidential ones to the editors. Remember, while peer review is often anonymous, never include anything in your report that you wouldn't discuss with the author in person.

Step by step guide to reviewing a manuscript

Stage	Step	Reviewer Actions	Key Questions / Considerations
1. Invitation to Review	Assess suitability	Read the abstract, evaluate expertise, availability, and possible conflicts of interest. Respond promptly to the invitation.	Am I qualified to review this manuscript? Do I have any conflicts of interest? Can I complete the review on time?
2. Preparation	Understand the study	Review the abstract carefully to identify the research question, methods, major findings, and conclusions.	Are the aims, methods, and conclusions clearly presented?
3. First Read-Through	Initial assessment	Perform a rapid read of the entire manuscript to gain an overall impression. Take notes and record relevant page or line numbers.	Is the manuscript potentially acceptable, revisable, or unsuitable for publication?
4. Evaluate Relevance and Originality	Assess scientific contribution	Determine whether the research question is important, novel, and relevant to the field.	Does the study add meaningful knowledge beyond existing literature?
5. Assess Clarity and Logic	Review presentation	Examine the organization, writing quality, and logical flow of arguments.	Are the conclusions supported by the evidence presented?
6. Review Data Presentation	Examine tables and figures	Assess whether tables, figures, and images are necessary, clear, and supportive of the findings.	Do visual elements effectively communicate the results?
7. Identify Major Flaws	Detect critical issues	Look for methodological weaknesses, unsupported conclusions, missing key variables, or flawed analyses.	Are there serious concerns affecting the validity of the findings?
8. Assess Methodology	Evaluate study design	Review sampling, controls, data collection, analytical methods, and reproducibility.	Are the methods appropriate, rigorous, and adequately described?
9. Assess Data Quality	Verify evidence	Examine data consistency, completeness, and alignment with conclusions.	Are the data sufficient, reliable, and internally consistent?
10. Draft Initial Review Summary	Prepare overview	Write a concise summary of the study’s objectives, methods, findings, and significance.	What are the strengths and overall contribution of the manuscript?
11. Provide Conceptual Assessment	Evaluate impact	Discuss novelty, scientific value, methodological soundness, and reliability of results.	Does the manuscript make a meaningful contribution to the field?
12. Read Entire Manuscript	Confirm impressions	Conduct a complete review, including strengths and weaknesses, before making recommendations.	Are initial concerns supported after a full reading?
13. Second Read-Through	Detailed evaluation	Carefully review all sections for accuracy, completeness, and areas requiring revision.	Does the manuscript meet publication standards after detailed scrutiny?
14. Assess Argument Construction	Review reasoning	Identify unclear statements, unsupported claims, factual errors, and logical inconsistencies.	Is the scientific argument coherent and evidence-based?
15. Evaluate Title, Abstract, and Keywords	Check consistency	Ensure that title, abstract, and keywords accurately reflect the manuscript content.	Are the key messages concise, accurate, and accessible?
16. Assess Language and Readability	Evaluate clarity	Focus on whether the manuscript's meaning is understandable rather than correcting grammar.	Does language hinder scientific interpretation?
17. Organize Comments	Structure feedback	Group major concerns, minor concerns, and positive comments separately.	Are recommendations clear, constructive, and actionable?
18. Prepare Comments to Authors	Constructive feedback	Provide specific, evidence-based suggestions for improvement while maintaining a respectful tone.	Will the comments help authors strengthen the manuscript?
19. Prepare Confidential Comments to Editors	Editorial guidance	Share concerns that may not be appropriate for authors, including ethical issues or publication recommendations.	Are there concerns requiring editorial attention?
20. Final Recommendation	Submit review	Recommend one of the following: Accept, Minor Revision, Major Revision, or Reject. Submit the review on time.	Does the manuscript meet the journal's standards for publication?

Suggested Structure of the Review Report

Section	Content
Summary of the Manuscript	Brief overview of objectives, methods, results, and conclusions
Major Comments	Significant scientific, methodological, or interpretative concerns
Minor Comments	Editorial, presentation, or clarification issues
Strengths of the Study	Novelty, methodological rigor, clinical relevance, or contribution to knowledge
Recommendation	Accept, Minor Revision, Major Revision, or Reject
Confidential Comments to Editor	Optional comments regarding publication suitability or ethical concerns