Reviewer ResourcesJournal of Ulcers
Tools for consistent and effective review reports.
Resources for Reviewers
JU provides checklists, reporting guidance, and ethics resources to support high quality evaluations.
Guidelines and Checklists
Resources include summaries of CONSORT, STROBE, and PRISMA where relevant, plus structured review templates.
Support and Assistance
Contact the editorial office for help with review forms, deadlines, or confidential concerns.
Request Reviewer Tools
Email the editorial office for access to reviewer resources.
Email the Editorial OfficeRequest InformationEmail: [email protected]
JU Commitment
We emphasize quality, transparency, and timely communication to support the ulcer research community.
Quality and Consistency
Editors and reviewers apply consistent criteria to assess methodological rigor, reporting clarity, and clinical relevance. This shared standard helps authors understand expectations and improves the reliability of published findings.
Timely Communication
Prompt responses to invitations and clear timelines help maintain an efficient review workflow. When delays arise, the editorial office coordinates updates so authors remain informed.
Ethics and Confidentiality
All participants in the editorial process are expected to respect confidentiality and disclose conflicts of interest. Ethical oversight protects patients, researchers, and the integrity of the record.
Recognition and Growth
Editorial and review service builds professional reputation and supports career development. JU provides acknowledgement and can confirm service upon request.
Decision Documentation
Clear notes on strengths, limitations, and required revisions help authors respond effectively. Consistent documentation also supports fair decision making across ulcer research submissions.
Editorial Office Support
The editorial office assists with logistics, reminders, and policy guidance so editors and reviewers can focus on scientific quality. This partnership keeps the workflow professional and reliable.
Evidence Focus
Assess conclusions against the data presented and confirm that limitations are stated clearly. Emphasizing evidence based decision making strengthens clinical utility and protects patients.
Respectful Tone
Feedback should be constructive and professional, even when recommending major revisions. A respectful tone encourages productive author engagement and improves the quality of revisions.
Decision Consistency
Apply similar standards across submissions to ensure fairness. Consistent decisions strengthen author confidence and reinforce the credibility of the journal.
Consistency
Standard tools help maintain clear, respectful feedback that supports author revisions and editorial decisions. These resources keep reviews aligned with reporting standards and support consistent recommendations. Use them when drafting structured reports and final recommendations consistently.
