Review Objectives
Assess novelty, methodological rigor, data integrity, and relevance to drug-resistant pathogen research. Provide evidence-based feedback that helps authors improve their work.
Key Review Criteria
Use the following criteria to deliver consistent, high-quality reviews.
Methods
Evaluate design and reproducibility
- Appropriate study design
- Clear methods and controls
- Validated assays or datasets
- Transparent statistical analysis
Results
Confirm data supports conclusions
- Figures and tables are clear
- Results match claims
- Limitations are stated
- Clinical relevance addressed
Ethics
Verify ethical and integrity standards
- Ethics approvals documented
- Conflicts disclosed
- Data availability statement present
- No evidence of misconduct
Tone and Structure of Reviews
Provide a brief summary of the manuscript, major concerns, and minor comments. Focus on evidence, avoid personal language, and be specific about required revisions. Confidential comments to the editor should address ethics or conflicts when relevant.
Confidentiality and Conflicts
Do not share manuscripts or use unpublished data for personal research. Decline reviews when conflicts exist or impartiality cannot be maintained.
Data and Method Checks
Confirm that datasets or sequences referenced in the manuscript are accessible and that methods are described with sufficient detail for replication. If critical data are missing, note this clearly in your review.
Review Timelines
Respond promptly to review invitations and submit reviews within the agreed timeframe. If additional time is needed, notify the editorial office so assignments can be managed effectively.
Bias Awareness
Assess manuscripts based on evidence and methodology, not author affiliation or geography. Fair reviews support diversity and strengthen the global AMR evidence base.
Required vs Optional Revisions
Clearly separate essential changes from optional recommendations. This helps authors respond efficiently and helps editors reach timely, transparent decisions.
Structure of an Effective Review
Provide a concise summary of the study, followed by major concerns and then minor comments. This structure helps authors prioritize revisions and improves editorial decision making. Avoid sharing confidential content outside the review process.
Highlight any ethical concerns, data availability gaps, or reporting inconsistencies so editors can address them promptly and communicate clear next steps to authors.
Please note any limitations that affect generalizability or clinical application.
Support Rigorous Peer Review
Your expertise strengthens the quality and credibility of AMR research worldwide.
