Reviewer Guidelines
Reviewers ensure critical care and emergency research is accurate, ethical, and clinically meaningful.
Reviewer Role
Constructive feedback improves clarity and strengthens critical care and emergency evidence.
- Provide a brief summary of the contribution
- Identify major concerns affecting validity
- List minor comments for clarity
- Provide a recommendation with rationale
Evaluation Focus
Review methodology, statistical reporting, and clinical relevance.
- Study design appropriateness and bias control
- Statistical reporting and outcome transparency
- Imaging protocol clarity and validation
- Ethics approval and participant protections
Use clear, respectful language and cite sections where changes are needed.
Structured Review Format
A structured report improves editorial decisions and author revisions.
- Summary of the main contribution
- Major concerns that affect validity
- Minor comments for clarity and style
- Recommendation with clear rationale
Provide specific references to manuscript sections to support efficient revision.
Structured reviews help authors address feedback efficiently and improve outcomes.
Timelines
Reviewers should accept or decline invitations promptly and deliver reviews within the agreed timeframe.
Confidentiality is required. Reviewers should disclose conflicts and decline assignments when necessary.
If additional time is required, notify the editor early to avoid delays in decision making.
Confidentiality and Conflicts
Reviewer confidentiality protects the integrity of the peer review process.
Reviewers must not share manuscripts or use unpublished data for personal advantage. Conflicts of interest should be disclosed promptly.
Recommendation Guidance
Recommendations should be aligned with the evidence and the journal standards.
If recommending revision, specify the critical changes required for validity and clarity. If recommending rejection, provide clear and respectful rationale tied to study design or ethics.
Clear recommendations help editors make timely and consistent decisions.
Concise recommendations reduce unnecessary review cycles.
Objectivity and Bias
Reviews should focus on evidence and avoid personal or institutional bias.
- Evaluate the study on its merits and methods
- Avoid language that is dismissive or speculative
- Declare conflicts and recuse when needed
- Support comments with specific references to the manuscript
Objective reviews build trust in the peer review process.
Clinical Relevance
Reviewers should comment on clinical impact and translation to practice.
Highlight whether outcomes are clinically meaningful and whether the study addresses real world critical care and emergency needs.
Comments on applicability help editors prioritize high impact evidence.
Note patient impact when possible.
Join Our Reviewer Community
Register as a reviewer and contribute to high quality critical care and emergency research.
Reviewer Register
Submit your expertise profile to join the reviewer pool.
