Information for Reviewers

• Scientific rigor

  Assess whether the question, design and evidence support the conclusions.

• Methodological quality

  Evaluate study design, analysis and reporting against the relevant standards.

• Interpretation and limitations

  Judge whether interpretation is proportionate and limitations are acknowledged.

• Constructive feedback

  Provide clear, respectful comments the authors can act on.

• Confidentiality

  Manuscripts under review are confidential. Do not share, discuss or use their contents.

• Conflicts of interest

  Declare any conflict before accepting an invitation; decline when one exists.

Review workflow

1. Invitation→
2. Acceptance→
3. Review→
4. Recommendation→
5. Editorial Decision

The peer review process

1. 1

   Editorial screening

   The editorial office checks completeness, scope, ethics statements, formatting and similarity. Unsuitable submissions may be returned to the authors or declined before review.

2. 2

   Assignment to an editor

   The Editor-in-Chief assigns the manuscript to a handling editor. An editor who is an author of the manuscript, or has a conflict with it, cannot handle it.

3. 3

   Invitation of reviewers

   The editor invites independent experts and sets a due date. You see the title and abstract and can accept or decline.

4. 4

   Review

   Accepted reviewers receive the files they need and submit a report with comments for the authors, optional confidential comments for the editor, ratings and a recommendation.

5. 5

   Recommendation and decision

   The handling editor weighs the reports and advises the Editor-in-Chief, who records the decision: accept, minor revision, major revision or reject.

6. 6

   Revision and further review

   Authors revise and respond to every comment. The editor may return the revision to the same reviewers (a new review round) or to new reviewers, or decide directly.

7. 7

   Acceptance and production

   Accepted manuscripts move to copyediting and production. Authors approve the final version before the article is published.

Reviewers’ identities are not revealed to authors, and reviewers do not see author names or the identified manuscript where blind review applies. Reviewers never see the reports of other reviewers. Comments marked as confidential to the editor are never shown to authors.

Reviewer guidelines

What to assess

• Is the work within the aims and scope of the journal, and is it original and significant?
• Are the question, design and methods appropriate and described in enough detail to be replicated?
• Is the statistical analysis suitable, and are assumptions checked and results reported with appropriate uncertainty?
• Are tables and figures clear, and do they avoid repeating the text?
• Do the conclusions follow from the results, and are limitations discussed fairly?
• Are ethical approval, consent, trial registration, funding, competing interests and data availability stated?
• Are the references appropriate and complete, and is the writing clear?
• Is there any sign of plagiarism, duplicate publication, image manipulation or other misconduct? Report concerns to the editor in confidence.

Your responsibilities

• Independence and conflicts: declare any competing interest before accepting, and decline if you cannot be objective, for example because you work with an author or at the same institution.
• Confidentiality: do not share, discuss or use the manuscript or your review outside the process, and do not contact the authors directly. If you wish to involve a colleague, ask the editor first.
• Timeliness: respond to the invitation promptly and submit your report by the due date. Tell the editor early if you need more time.
• Constructive and courteous tone: criticise the work, not the authors, and explain your reasoning so the authors can act on it.
• Use of AI: do not upload the manuscript or your report to AI tools that store or reuse content. Any permitted use must be disclosed to the editor, and you remain responsible for your opinion.
• Recommendation: accept, minor revision, major revision or reject. The editor makes the final decision.

When you register you can say that you are willing to review and list your interests. Editors invite reviewers from registered accounts.