Reviewer Guidelines for IIIJ
Reviewers are central to the quality of IIIJ. These guidelines outline how to deliver fair, constructive, and timely reviews for manuscripts spanning in vitro, in vivo, and in silico research.
In Vitro
Assess methods, controls, and reproducibility
In Vivo
Evaluate ethics and translational relevance
In Silico
Review data integrity and model validity
Core Review Criteria
Methodological Rigor
Study Quality- Appropriate controls and replication
- Clear methods and materials
- Accurate statistical analysis
Ethics and Relevance
Translational Value- Ethics approvals and consent documented
- Clinical or physiological relevance
- Balanced interpretation of results
Transparency
Data and Models- Data availability and code disclosure
- Model validation and performance metrics
- Reproducible computational workflows
Structuring Your Review
Begin with a brief summary of the manuscript, then list major issues and minor comments. Be specific about changes needed and reference sections or figures when possible.
Conflicts and Timelines
Declare conflicts of interest before accepting a review. If you cannot meet the review deadline, decline promptly so the editorial office can reassign the manuscript.
Key Items to Evaluate
Confidential Notes
Use confidential comments to raise concerns about ethics, data integrity, or potential overlap with other work. Editors rely on these notes to guide final decisions. Keep confidential notes concise and specific.
Revision Guidance
When recommending revision, clearly distinguish essential changes from optional improvements. Prioritized guidance helps authors respond efficiently and improves final quality. Provide line level suggestions when helpful.
Positive Feedback
Highlight strengths as well as weaknesses. Positive feedback helps authors preserve what works and encourages constructive improvement rather than purely critical comments. A balanced review is often the most useful to authors.
Scope Considerations
If a manuscript is outside the scope of IIIJ, note this in your review and explain why. Clear scope feedback helps editors make fair and efficient decisions. Suggest redirection only when appropriate.
Constructive peer review strengthens translational science. Your expertise helps authors improve and supports trustworthy publication.
Interested in Reviewing?
Register as a reviewer or contact [email protected] with questions about reviewer expectations. We value reviewers who provide balanced, evidence based feedback and clear recommendations. Reviewer training materials are available on request. Timely responses are appreciated, and detailed methodology checks are valued, including statistics, data integrity, and reproducibility. If you need an extension, notify the editor early to keep decisions on track.
