• Reporting guideline references by study design
• Structured review templates and checklists
• Ethics guidance for consent and data integrity
• Data availability review tips

• Clear research question and appropriate study design
• Transparent reporting of outcomes and limitations
• Consistency between abstract, results, and conclusions
• Adequate description of statistical methods

The editorial office provides guidance for complex methods, imaging data, and clinical trial reviews.

Reviewers can request specialized statistical review when analyses are complex.

If concerns arise about ethics, data integrity, or duplicate submission, reviewers should notify the editorial office rather than contacting authors directly.

Reviewers are encouraged to check whether interventions are described with sufficient detail for clinical replication, including dosage, session length, and practitioner qualifications.

Attention to cultural context and patient safety strengthens the review and supports responsible translation.

When analyses are complex, reviewers can request methodological guidance or statistical review assistance through the editorial office.

Reviewers should verify that data availability statements include repository links, access conditions, and any ethical restrictions. Clear data access improves reproducibility.

Use reporting guideline checklists such as CONSORT, PRISMA, STROBE, or CARE depending on study design. These tools improve consistency in review feedback.

• Clear description of interventions and comparators
• Transparent statistical reporting and effect sizes
• Complete ethics approvals and consent statements
• Alignment between conclusions and reported data

These checkpoints help reviewers deliver consistent and actionable feedback.

Consistent checklists improve fairness across submissions.

Use them to structure feedback for authors and editors.

They also improve decision clarity for editors.

Structured reviews save time.

Use checklists consistently.