Purpose of Peer Review
Peer review helps editors evaluate methods, reporting, interpretation, originality, relevance, and limitations. It is a critical assessment rather than certification of truth, clinical effectiveness, future citations, or acceptance.
Single-blind Review
Reviewers normally know author identities. Authors normally do not know reviewer identities.
Reviewer identities, manuscripts, reviewer reports, and confidential review information remain confidential unless disclosure is explicitly authorized through an approved process.
Initial Editorial Assessment
Editors assess scope, completeness, originality, reporting, ethical compliance, integrity, and suitability. A manuscript may be declined without external review when desk rejection is appropriate.
Reviewer Selection and Conduct
Reviewers are selected for relevant expertise, independence, and ability to assess the work. Invitations may consider methodological as well as subject expertise; author suggestions do not determine selection.
Reviewers should disclose conflicts, decline work they cannot assess impartially or responsibly, protect confidentiality, and provide constructive, evidence-based comments. They must not contact authors directly, delegate review without permission, or use unpublished material for personal advantage.
Author and Editor Responsibilities
Authors should respond respectfully and point by point, identify changes, explain reasoned disagreements, and keep the editor informed of material errors or new concerns. They must not attempt to identify or improperly influence reviewers.
Editors protect confidential material, manage conflicts, weigh reports critically, and make decisions independently. A reviewer recommendation is advisory and may be set aside when incomplete, conflicted, inconsistent with policy, or unsupported.
Recommendations and Decisions
Review may support acceptance, minor or major revision, rejection, or another journal-appropriate recommendation. Multiple rounds or additional specialist review may be necessary. External review, revision, and acceptance are never guaranteed, and no fixed review timeline is promised.
Revision and Additional Review
Authors may be asked to respond point by point and revise their manuscript. Revised work may receive additional review. A request for revision is not a promise of acceptance.
Editorial Authority
Peer review informs but does not replace editorial judgment. Editors retain final authority and may consider reviews, scope, methodological and clinical relevance, ethics, integrity, and author responses.
After Decision and Publication
Peer-review material remains confidential after a decision unless an authorized process states otherwise. A credible post-publication concern may require renewed editorial assessment, additional expert advice, or action under the corrections and retractions policy.
Appeals, Complaints, and Integrity Concerns
A reasoned appeal should identify the manuscript, decision, and specific scholarly or procedural basis. Complaints may concern process, reviewer conduct, confidentiality, or integrity and will be considered by an appropriate person not directly implicated where practicable. Review does not guarantee reversal. Payment does not influence assessment or decisions.