Reviewer Guidelines
Best practices for providing constructive peer review that advances primary care research quality.
Excellence in Peer Review
IJGP reviewers ensure scientific validity and help authors improve family medicine research through fair, constructive evaluation and actionable feedback.
Reviewers evaluate manuscripts for scientific merit, methodological rigor, and clinical contribution while providing constructive feedback.
Scientific Validity
Assess whether conclusions are supported by data, methods are appropriate, and claims are justified for primary care research.
Clinical Significance
Evaluate whether findings are relevant to family medicine practice and advance patient care understanding.
Constructive Feedback
Provide specific, actionable suggestions helping authors improve manuscripts while maintaining respect.
- Maintain strict confidentiality of manuscript content and author identities
- Decline reviews involving conflicts of interest in primary care
- Provide objective assessment based on scientific merit
- Report suspected misconduct through appropriate channels
Timeline expectations: Complete reviews within 21 days of acceptance. If delays are anticipated, notify the editorial office promptly for family medicine manuscripts.
Effective reviews address major scientific issues, methodological concerns, and presentation clarity. Separate major from minor concerns. Conclude with clear recommendation and justification.
Access Review Resources
Find templates and guidance for preparing quality primary care reviews.
View Resources
