Reviewer Guidelines: Etiological Diagnosis
Deliver clear, constructive reviews that strengthen diagnostic evidence.
How to Provide Effective Feedback
Structured reviews help authors improve clarity and etiological rigor.
Begin with a short summary of the study, then list major issues followed by minor comments. Focus on methodology, diagnostic validity, and whether the evidence supports etiological conclusions. Avoid requesting unrelated experiments and highlight any data availability gaps.
Confidentiality and Conflicts
Maintain impartiality and protect manuscript confidentiality.
Assess Fit
Accept reviews only within your expertise and without conflicts.
Maintain Confidentiality
Do not share manuscripts or use unpublished data outside review.
Provide Evidence Based Comments
Support critiques with references or methodological rationale.
When reporting concerns about ethics or data integrity, provide specific details to help editors evaluate the issue. Timely reviews are essential for rapid diagnostic dissemination.
Highlight Critical Issues
Flag ethical or methodological concerns clearly for editors.
If you identify potential ethical issues, data inconsistencies, or unclear diagnostic criteria, explain the concern and suggest what evidence is needed to resolve it. This helps editors provide clear guidance and protects the integrity of etiological findings.
Scoring and Recommendations
Align your recommendation with the evidence presented.
Indicate whether the manuscript is acceptable as is, requires minor revision, major revision, or rejection. Provide clear justification tied to study design, diagnostic validity, and data transparency. This helps editors make consistent decisions.
Constructive Review Tone
Professional feedback strengthens the diagnostic literature.
Use respectful language and focus on evidence. Highlight strengths as well as weaknesses to help authors improve their work. If a study is out of scope, explain why in concise, objective terms.
Confidential Notes to Editors
Use confidential notes for sensitive concerns.
Provide confidential comments to editors when raising ethical concerns or issues not appropriate for authors. This helps editors act quickly while preserving reviewer confidentiality.
Respect Review Deadlines
Timely reviews protect author timelines.
If you cannot meet a deadline, notify the editorial office so another reviewer can be assigned quickly.
Support Comments With Sources
Evidence based reviews are most helpful.
When possible, reference guidelines or published evidence to justify recommendations.
Prioritize Key Concerns
Emphasize issues that impact diagnosis accuracy.
Highlight the most critical concerns first to guide effective revisions.
Support Peer Review Excellence
Join our reviewer community and advance etiological diagnosis research.
For questions: [email protected]
