Principles of Peer Review

Reviewers provide objective, constructive feedback that strengthens manuscripts and supports editorial decisions. Confidentiality and impartiality are essential throughout the review process.

Conflict of Interest

Reviewers should decline assignments where conflicts may affect impartiality. Inform the editor promptly if conflicts arise.

Constructive Feedback

Provide specific, actionable comments and maintain a respectful tone. Focus on scientific rigor and clarity to help authors improve.

Review Structure

Begin with a brief summary of the manuscript, then list major concerns followed by minor comments. Clear structure helps editors and authors respond efficiently.

Ethics and Data Checks

Verify that ethics approvals, consent statements, and data availability information are present. Flag concerns about biosafety or regulatory compliance when relevant.

Timeliness

Accept reviews only when you can meet the deadline. Prompt reviews keep the publication process efficient and respect authors timelines.

Recommendation Guidance

Provide a clear recommendation based on evidence, such as accept, minor revision, major revision, or reject. Align your recommendation with the comments provided.

Confidentiality and Anonymity

Do not share manuscripts or discuss their content outside the review process. Maintain reviewer anonymity if the journal uses anonymous review.

Methods and Statistics

Assess whether methods are reproducible and statistics are appropriate. Flag missing controls, unclear protocols, or unsupported conclusions.

Reporting Guidelines

Check whether the manuscript follows relevant reporting guidelines such as CONSORT, STROBE, or ARRIVE. Request checklists when required.

Professional Tone

Keep comments focused on the science and avoid personal language. Provide constructive suggestions and cite specific sections or figures when requesting changes. Avoid requests for citations to your own work unless clearly necessary for completeness. If you spot potential ethical issues, describe them factually and suggest evidence that would resolve concerns. Note any missing controls, unclear statistical reporting, or unsupported claims in a neutral tone. This approach helps editors make fair decisions and reduces unnecessary conflict. Focus on actionable changes that improve clarity and rigor for the research community at large.