Reviewer Guidelines
Best practices for providing constructive peer review that advances nephrology research quality.
Excellence in Peer Review
Nephrology Advances reviewers ensure scientific validity and help authors improve their kidney research through fair, constructive evaluation and actionable feedback.
Reviewers evaluate manuscripts for scientific merit, methodological rigor, and contribution to nephrology knowledge while providing constructive feedback for improvement.
Scientific Validity
Assess whether conclusions are supported by data, methods are appropriate, and claims are justified for kidney research.
Clinical Relevance
Evaluate methodology adequacy, statistical analysis appropriateness, and applicability to nephrology practice.
Constructive Feedback
Provide specific, actionable suggestions that help authors improve their kidney manuscripts while maintaining respect.
- Maintain strict confidentiality of manuscript content and author identities for nephrology research
- Decline reviews involving conflicts of interest in kidney science fields
- Provide objective assessment based on scientific merit, not personal preferences
- Report suspected misconduct or ethical concerns through appropriate channels
Timeline expectations: Complete reviews within 21 days of acceptance. If delays are anticipated, notify the editorial office promptly for nephrology 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 nephrology research reviews.
View Resources
