Reviewer Guidelines
Comprehensive standards and expectations for JOS peer reviewers in ophthalmology and vision science.
Guardians of Scientific Quality
Peer reviewers are the backbone of scientific publishing. Your expert evaluation ensures that JOS maintains the highest standards of scientific rigor, clinical relevance, and ethical integrity. These guidelines outline your responsibilities, evaluation criteria, and best practices for constructive review.
Journal at a Glance
- ISSN: 2470-0436
- DOI Prefix: 10.14302/issn.2470-0436
- License: CC BY 4.0 (open access)
- Peer Review: Single-blind
- First Decision: 2-4 weeks from submission
- Publication: Within 2 weeks of APC payment
As a JOS reviewer, your fundamental duties include:
- Evaluate manuscripts objectively for scientific validity, methodological rigor, and clinical significance
- Assess the originality of the research question and its contribution to ophthalmic 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 authorship problems
- 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 subspecialty expertise (e.g., glaucoma, retina, cornea, neuro-ophthalmology). If the methodology is outside your competence, inform the editor so a methodological reviewer can be added.
Conflict of Interest
Decline if you have a personal relationship with the authors, recent collaboration, competitive interest in the research topic, or financial conflicts. When in doubt, disclose to the editor and let them decide.
Time Commitment
Ensure you can complete the review within the requested timeline. A typical thorough review requires 2-4 hours. If you cannot meet the deadline, decline promptly so another reviewer can be invited.
When assessing an ophthalmic manuscript, systematically evaluate the following dimensions:
| Criterion | Key Questions |
|---|---|
| Originality | Does this address a significant gap in ophthalmic knowledge? Is the research question novel and clinically relevant? |
| Scientific Validity | Is the study design appropriate? Are sample sizes adequate? Are statistical methods correctly applied? |
| Methodology | Are diagnostic criteria clear? Are surgical techniques adequately described? Is follow-up sufficient? |
| Results | Do the data support the conclusions? Are outcomes clearly presented? Are limitations acknowledged? |
| Clinical Relevance | Does this advance patient care? Is it generalizable to broader practice? What is the clinical impact? |
| Presentation | Is the manuscript clearly written? Are figures and tables of acceptable quality? Is the length appropriate? |
Clinical Images
Evaluate the quality of fundus photographs, OCT scans, anterior segment images, and surgical videos. Confirm that pathology is clearly visible, images are properly labeled, and resolution is adequate for publication.
Surgical Technique Papers
Assess whether the technique is clearly described step-by-step, safety considerations are addressed, learning curve is discussed, and outcomes are compared with established alternatives.
Device/Pharmaceutical Studies
Note any potential conflicts of interest. Evaluate whether the study design minimizes bias, comparators are appropriate, and industry involvement is clearly disclosed.
Case Reports
Consider whether the case is truly unusual, educationally valuable, and well-documented. Verify that patient consent is confirmed and the literature review is adequate.
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 (clarifications, typos)
- Be specific: Reference specific lines, figures, or tables. 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
- Provide references: When suggesting additional literature, provide specific citations the authors may not be aware of
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.
When reviewing a revised submission:
- Carefully read the authors' point-by-point response to your previous comments
- Verify that substantive concerns have been adequately addressed in the revised manuscript
- If revisions are insufficient, clearly explain what additional changes are needed
- Avoid raising new issues unless they are critical and were not apparent in the original version
- Complete re-reviews promptly, typically within 7-10 days
Reviewers must maintain the highest ethical standards:
- Do not use ideas, data, or methods from manuscripts under review for your own research or benefit
- Do not share manuscripts with colleagues or trainees without editor permission
- Report suspected plagiarism, duplicate publication, or data fabrication to the editor immediately
- Do not contact authors directly about the manuscript
- Decline further reviews if you become aware of a conflict during the review process
Questions About Reviewing?
Our editorial team is available to support you with any questions about the review process or specific manuscripts.
Contact Editorial Office
