Reviewers should assess scientific rigor, clinical relevance, and originality. Evaluate whether the methodology is appropriate, results are clearly reported, and conclusions are supported by data.

Start with a brief summary of the manuscript, then list major concerns followed by minor comments. This structure helps editors prioritize revisions and helps authors address issues efficiently.

Manuscripts and review comments are confidential. Reviewers must disclose conflicts of interest and decline assignments when conflicts could affect objectivity.

Reviews should be respectful and focused on the work, not the authors. Avoid personal comments and use clear language that helps authors improve the manuscript.

Provide clear, respectful feedback that helps authors improve the work. Distinguish between major concerns and minor edits, and offer actionable suggestions where possible. Be specific.

Check whether the manuscript follows relevant reporting standards such as CONSORT, PRISMA, STROBE, or ORION. Confirm that data availability statements are included and that conclusions align with reported outcomes.

Editors rely on clear recommendations such as accept, minor revision, major revision, or reject. Provide justification linked to specific sections of the manuscript to support your recommendation. If a manuscript is outside your expertise, inform the editor promptly. Partial reviews are acceptable when clearly stated.

Timely reviews help authors and editors reach decisions quickly. If you cannot meet the requested timeline, notify the editorial office so another reviewer can be assigned. Communicate delays early to avoid holding up decisions for authors.

Do not share manuscript content or data with colleagues, and do not use unpublished findings for your own research. Maintain confidentiality even after the review is complete.

If you suspect plagiarism, data manipulation, or ethical issues, alert the editorial office with specific concerns. Do not contact authors directly.