Reviewer Guidelines

Expectations for high quality peer review in tissue repair research.

• Maintain confidentiality and do not share manuscript content.
• Declare conflicts of interest and decline reviews if needed.
• Provide specific, actionable feedback with evidence based reasoning.
• Avoid personal remarks and remain respectful.
• Submit the review by the requested deadline.
• Indicate major or minor concerns clearly.
• Highlight ethical or data integrity concerns to the editor.
• Suggest additional reviewers if the topic is outside your expertise.

Begin with a short summary of the study and your overall assessment. Then provide major comments followed by minor comments to help authors prioritize revisions.

If recommending rejection, outline the critical scientific issues that cannot be addressed through revision so editors can make a fair decision.

• Do not use unpublished data for personal research.
• Avoid sharing manuscripts with colleagues without permission.
• Disclose any competing interests to the editor promptly.
• Maintain objectivity and avoid bias in comments.
• Report concerns about plagiarism or data manipulation.
• Ensure feedback is focused on science and reporting quality.

Point to specific sections or figures when suggesting changes. This helps authors respond efficiently and improves the clarity of revisions.

Balance critique with acknowledgment of strengths so authors understand which aspects of the work should be preserved.

Thoughtful peer review strengthens the evidence base for tissue repair and regeneration.