Reviewer GuidelinesJournal of Endocrinology and Hormones
Reviewers strengthen endocrine research by evaluating methods, clarity, and clinical relevance.
Principles of Peer Review
Provide objective, evidence based feedback that improves methodology and reporting clarity.
What to Evaluate
Assess study design, statistical analysis, patient relevance, and data integrity. Flag concerns about bias, reproducibility, or ethical compliance.
Confidentiality and Conflicts
Maintain confidentiality and decline reviews if conflicts could affect impartiality.
Research Visibility and Trust
Endocrine Expertise
Peer review is guided by clinicians and scientists who understand hormone biology and metabolic disease.
Open Access Reach
Published articles are freely accessible to researchers, clinicians, and policy teams worldwide.
Metadata Quality
Structured metadata supports discovery, citation tracking, and persistent research records.
Ethics First
Clear policies on consent, data integrity, and conflicts protect patient focused research.
Join the Reviewer Network
Register as a reviewer and support high quality endocrinology publications.
Email the Editorial OfficeView Reviewer BenefitsEmail: [email protected]
Review Structure
Begin with a brief summary, list major issues, and then note minor revisions. This structure helps authors respond effectively.
Timeliness
Accept reviews only when you can meet the deadline. Prompt reviews keep decisions on schedule.
Clinical Relevance
Highlight how findings influence diagnosis, treatment, or endocrine care pathways. If a study is highly technical, indicate what additional context could improve readability.
Methods and Statistics
Check whether the study design answers the research question and whether statistical reporting is complete. Note missing effect sizes, confidence intervals, or unclear endpoints.
Ethics and Compliance
Verify that ethics approvals, consent statements, and trial registrations are provided where applicable. Flag any concerns about patient safety or reporting standards.
Data Availability
Confirm that data availability statements are clear and that repositories or supplementary files are accessible. Transparency supports reproducibility and downstream meta analyses.
Reviewer Comments
Separate confidential notes to the editor from comments to the authors. Keep feedback professional, specific, and action oriented to help authors revise efficiently.
Strengths and Limitations
Note the strongest contributions and the most critical limitations. Balanced reviews help editors make fair decisions and guide authors toward meaningful improvements.
Figures and Tables
Check whether figures are readable, units are clear, and tables match the results narrative. Suggest concise improvements when presentation affects interpretation.
Language and Tone
Use neutral language, avoid personally identifying comments, and indicate when additional references or comparisons would strengthen the endocrine context for readers. Cite specific sections or line numbers to help authors act quickly.
