Confidentiality
Treat manuscript content as confidential and do not share material outside review workflow.
Peer Review Standards
Reviewer Guidelines
Reviewer Guidelines
Journal of Implementation Science
Deliver rigorous, balanced, and actionable reviews that support fair and high-quality implementation science publication decisions.
45%APC Savings
14 DaysFast Decision
GlobalResearch Community
24/7Open Access
Review Purpose
Guidelines for High-Quality Peer Review
Reviewers are expected to provide evidence-based, constructive, and policy-aligned evaluations.
JIS peer review focuses on methodological validity, interpretation discipline, and relevance to implementation science.
Effective reviews identify decision-critical risks clearly and distinguish major scientific concerns from secondary refinements.
Evaluation Focus
What Reviewers Should Assess First
A structured evaluation sequence improves consistency and editorial usefulness.
- Is the study question clinically meaningful and aligned with manuscript design?
- Are methods and analyses sufficiently transparent for reproducibility?
- Do conclusions remain proportional to evidence strength and study limitations?
- Are ethics, disclosures, and conflicts documented appropriately?
- Are figures, tables, and supplementary files consistent with narrative claims?
- Are references adequate and correctly used to support interpretation?
Where concerns exist, reviewers should cite specific sections or tables to improve traceability of requested changes.
Constructive tone and actionable recommendations improve author response quality and review cycle efficiency.
Professional Standards
Confidentiality, Neutrality, and Timeliness
Reviewer professionalism is essential for fair editorial decisions.
Conflict Disclosure
Decline assignments when personal, professional, or financial conflicts could affect neutrality.
Neutral Recommendations
Avoid citation requests that are not methodologically necessary or scientifically justified.
Timely Delivery
Submit reviews within agreed timelines to protect efficient editorial decisions.
Review comments should focus on evidence quality, reproducibility, and interpretation limits.
Specific line-linked feedback is more actionable than broad non-specific criticism.
Constructive recommendations improve manuscript quality while preserving reviewer neutrality.
Conflict and confidentiality rules should be followed strictly throughout peer review.
Timely reviews protect decision speed for clinically relevant research submissions.
Review comments should focus on evidence quality, reproducibility, and interpretation limits.
Specific line-linked feedback is more actionable than broad non-specific criticism.
Constructive recommendations improve manuscript quality while preserving reviewer neutrality.
Conflict and confidentiality rules should be followed strictly throughout peer review.
Timely reviews protect decision speed for clinically relevant research submissions.
Review comments should focus on evidence quality, reproducibility, and interpretation limits.
Support JIS as a High-Quality Reviewer
Apply these standards to provide reliable recommendations and strengthen publication outcomes for authors and readers.
Editorial office: [email protected]
