Provide Rigorous Reviews for Chronic Disease Research
JCD reviewers help maintain scientific quality and clinical relevance. These guidelines support fair, constructive, and timely reviews.
Reviewer Responsibilities
Reviewers evaluate methodology, clinical relevance, and reporting quality for chronic disease manuscripts.
- Assess study design, bias, and statistical integrity.
- Confirm conclusions align with reported results.
- Evaluate clinical significance and applicability.
- Recommend improvements with constructive feedback.
- Maintain confidentiality and disclose conflicts.
Ethical Review
Flag missing ethics approvals, consent statements, or data transparency issues that could affect patient safety.
Timely Response
Submit reviews on schedule to support the 21 day decision target and keep authors informed.
Protect the Review Process
Confidentiality protects authors and preserves integrity in chronic disease research.
Conflicts of Interest
Decline reviews if you have financial or personal conflicts. Notify the editor if any conflicts arise during review.
Confidential Data
Do not share manuscripts, data, or reviewer comments. Unpublished findings must remain confidential.
How to Organize Feedback
Clear structure helps editors and authors respond efficiently.
- Begin with a short summary of the study and strengths.
- List major issues that affect validity or interpretation.
- Provide minor comments on clarity and formatting.
- Separate confidential notes to editors if needed.
What to Focus On
Use consistent criteria when evaluating chronic disease manuscripts.
- Study design and risk of bias.
- Clinical relevance and patient impact.
- Appropriate statistical methods and reporting.
- Transparency of data and ethics statements.
- Alignment with JCD scope and priorities.
Decision Guidance
Provide a clear recommendation and rationale for editors.
- Recommend accept, minor revision, major revision, or reject.
- Highlight key issues that must be addressed before acceptance.
- Note ethical or reporting concerns requiring editor attention.
Respectful and Actionable Feedback
Constructive reviews help authors improve and keep the process collegial.
- Use respectful language and avoid personal commentary.
- Be specific about changes needed for validity.
- Separate major concerns from minor suggestions.
- Recognize strengths alongside weaknesses.
Reviewers may be acknowledged by the journal for service. Please avoid sharing manuscripts or reviews outside the system.
If you cannot review within the timeline, decline promptly so another reviewer can be assigned. Timely reviews keep chronic disease evidence moving to clinicians. Thank you for your service.
Questions about review expectations? Contact [email protected].
Support High Quality Evidence
Your reviews help clinicians and policymakers apply chronic disease evidence responsibly. Your expertise matters. Join us.
