Reviewer Resources
Tools for effective reviews
Reviewers receive guidance to ensure consistent and fair evaluation.
Structured templates and checklists improve review quality.
Resources Available
- Reporting guideline references by study design
- Structured review templates and checklists
- Ethics guidance for consent and data integrity
- Data availability review tips
Checklist Highlights
- Clear research question and appropriate study design
- Transparent reporting of outcomes and limitations
- Consistency between abstract, results, and conclusions
- Adequate description of statistical methods
Additional Guidance
Reviewers can request clarification from the editorial office if study methods are complex or if specialized statistical review is needed.
Clear, structured reviews help editors make timely and consistent decisions while supporting constructive author revisions.
Common Red Flags
- Missing ethics approval or consent information
- Inconsistent reporting across tables and text
- Unclear outcome definitions or time frames
- Lack of data availability statement
Support
The editorial office provides guidance for complex methods, imaging data, and clinical trial reviews.
Reviewers can request specialized statistical review when analyses are complex.
Ethics Review Pointers
Confirm that consent, privacy protections, and ethics approvals are clearly stated, especially for vulnerable populations or sensitive data.
Reviewers should also check that data availability statements align with the described datasets and analyses.
Best Practice Reminders
Structured reviews help editors make timely and consistent decisions. Balanced evaluation of strengths and limitations supports constructive revisions.
Clear feedback helps authors strengthen methods, reporting, and interpretation.
Statistical Review Support
Reviewers can recommend specialized statistical review when analyses are complex or when reporting lacks clarity. The editorial office can provide additional support.
Focus Areas
- Alignment between objectives, methods, and conclusions
- Appropriate handling of missing data and bias
- Clear reporting of outcomes and limitations
- Consistency between text, tables, and figures
Focused checks help reviewers deliver balanced, actionable feedback that supports author improvement.
This keeps review standards consistent across the journal.
Consistent guidance helps reviewers stay aligned.
Alignment improves decision quality.
Quality checks support reliable review outcomes.
Reliable outcomes improve trust in published evidence.
Contact the Editorial Office
We can provide additional resources or guidance during review.
