Reviewer Guidelines
Comprehensive standards and expectations for IJHA peer reviewers in anatomical science.
Guardians of Anatomical Knowledge
Peer reviewers are the backbone of scientific publishing. Your expert evaluation ensures that IJHA maintains the highest standards of scientific rigor, anatomical accuracy, and educational value. These guidelines outline your responsibilities, evaluation criteria, and best practices for constructive review.
Journal at a Glance
ISSN: 2577-2279 | DOI prefix: 10.14302/issn.2577-2279 | License: CC BY 4.0 | Open access publishing
IJHA uses single-blind peer review with typical editorial decisions in 4-6 weeks for complete submissions.
Your expertise sustains IJHA standards.
As an IJHA reviewer, your fundamental duties include:
- Evaluate manuscripts objectively for scientific validity, methodological rigor, and anatomical significance
- Assess the originality of the research and its contribution to anatomical knowledge
- Complete reviews within the requested timeline (typically 14-21 days)
- Provide constructive, specific, and actionable feedback to help authors improve their work
- Identify any ethical concerns, including potential plagiarism, data integrity issues, or image manipulation
- Maintain strict confidentiality of all manuscript contents and your review
- Declare any conflicts of interest before accepting a review assignment
- Adhere to COPE guidelines for ethical peer review conduct
Before agreeing to review a manuscript, consider the following:
Expertise Match
Confirm that the manuscript falls within your area of anatomical expertise (e.g., gross anatomy, neuroanatomy, histology, embryology, clinical anatomy). If the methodology is outside your competence, inform the editor.
Conflict of Interest
Decline if you have a personal relationship with the authors, recent collaboration, competitive interest in the research topic, or institutional conflicts. When in doubt, disclose to the editor.
Time Commitment
Ensure you can complete the review within the requested timeline. A typical thorough anatomy review requires 2-4 hours. If you cannot meet the deadline, decline promptly.
When assessing an anatomical manuscript, systematically evaluate the following dimensions:
| Criterion | Key Questions |
|---|---|
| Originality | Does this address a gap in anatomical knowledge? Is the research question novel and significant? |
| Scientific Validity | Is the study design appropriate? Are sample sizes adequate? Are statistical methods correctly applied? |
| Methodology | Are dissection/imaging techniques properly described? Can the study be replicated? |
| Anatomical Accuracy | Is Terminologia Anatomica used correctly? Are anatomical relationships accurately described? |
| Image Quality | Are figures clear and properly labeled? Do they adequately support the findings? |
| Clinical Relevance | For clinical anatomy papers, are the practical implications clearly articulated? |
Cadaveric Studies
Verify: appropriate institutional approval, adequate sample description (age, sex, cause of death if relevant), proper preservation methods, and reproducible dissection protocols.
Anatomical Variations
Assess: whether the variation is adequately documented, incidence calculation methods, clinical significance discussion, and comparison with existing literature.
Imaging Studies
Evaluate: imaging protocols, landmarking methods, measurement reliability, and correlation with cadaveric findings where applicable.
Education Research
Consider: study design rigor, appropriate learning outcome measures, control groups, and generalizability to other educational settings.
Your review should help authors improve their manuscript regardless of your recommendation:
- Structure your review: Organize comments into major issues (requiring substantial revision) and minor issues
- Be specific: Reference specific lines, figures, or anatomical descriptions. Vague criticism is unhelpful
- Explain your reasoning: When identifying a flaw, explain why it matters and suggest how to address it
- Maintain professionalism: Critique the work, not the authors. Avoid sarcasm or dismissive language
- Acknowledge strengths: Begin by noting the manuscript's positive aspects before discussing weaknesses
Confidential Comments to Editor
The confidential section is for your recommendation and any concerns not appropriate for the authors (e.g., suspected misconduct). Do not use this section to criticize authors in language you would not use directly.
Reviewers must maintain the highest ethical standards:
- Do not use ideas, data, images, or methods from manuscripts under review for your own research
- Do not share manuscripts with colleagues or trainees without editor permission
- Report suspected plagiarism, duplicate publication, or data fabrication to the editor immediately
- Flag any concerns about cadaver ethics or patient confidentiality violations
- Do not contact authors directly about the manuscript
Questions About Reviewing?
Our editorial team is available to support you with any questions about the review process or specific manuscripts.
Contact Editorial Office
