Reviewer Resources
Reviewers receive guidance to ensure consistent and fair evaluation.
Structured templates and checklists improve review quality.
Save on APCs
Member savings across tiers
Fast Decisions
Average initial review time
Global Reach
International readership
Rigorous Review
Expert evaluation
Resources Available
- Reporting guideline references by study design
- Structured review templates and checklists
- Ethics guidance for consent and data integrity
- Data availability review tips
Templates include prompts for clinical relevance, methodological rigor, and clarity of presentation.
Support
The editorial office provides guidance for complex methods, imaging data, and clinical trial reviews.
If a review raises ethics concerns, reviewers can flag the issue confidentially for editorial assessment.
Review Checklist Highlights
- Clear research question and appropriate study design
- Transparent reporting of outcomes and limitations
- Consistency between abstract, results, and conclusions
- Adequate description of statistical methods
Additional Guidance
Reviewers can request clarification from the editorial office if study methods are complex or if specialized statistical review is needed.
Common Red Flags
- Missing ethics approval or consent information
- Inconsistent reporting across tables and text
- Unclear outcome definitions or time frames
- Lack of data availability statement
Statistical Review Support
Reviewers can recommend specialized statistical review when analyses are complex or when reporting lacks clarity. The editorial office can provide additional support.
Ethics Review Pointers
Confirm that consent, privacy protections, and ethics approvals are clearly stated, especially for vulnerable populations or sensitive data.
Reviewers should also check that data availability statements align with the described datasets and analyses.
When ethical or methodological concerns arise, flag them early to support timely editorial action.
Clear, structured reviews help editors make timely and consistent decisions.
Resources emphasize balanced evaluation of strengths and limitations to support constructive revisions.
Consistent reviews help maintain journal standards.
They also help reviewers focus on clinical relevance and evidence strength.
This supports consistent review quality.
It improves author guidance.
It supports fair assessment.
It strengthens review consistency.
It reinforces best practice.
It improves consistency.
It supports reviewer confidence.
It improves decision quality.
It supports strong reviews.
It supports reliability.
It helps reviewers stay aligned.
It improves focus.
It supports alignment.
It supports quality.
It supports rigor.
It supports clarity.
It helps.
Contact the Editorial Office
We can provide additional resources or guidance during review.
