Focus on Evidence
Assess study design, analysis credibility, and alignment between data and conclusions rather than personal preference.
Reviewer Guidelines
Reviewer Guidelines for Patient Care Manuscripts
JPCS reviewers are expected to provide clear, evidence based, and constructive assessments that help editors make fair decisions and help authors improve manuscript quality.
45%APC Savings
Global -Research Community
24/7Open Access
Actionable Feedback
Use specific comments with clear improvement paths. Separate major issues from minor corrections.
Professional Tone
Maintain respectful language and avoid dismissive commentary even when recommending rejection.
Ethics Awareness
Flag concerns about consent, safety, data integrity, or conflicts with concise supporting rationale.
Submit reviews on time. Timely, high quality reviews are critical for fair editorial turnaround and author trust.
Review Report Structure Recommendation
A structured report improves clarity for editors and speeds high quality author revisions.
Section 1: Summary
Briefly describe the manuscript objective and your view of its main contribution.
Section 2: Major Issues
List validity related concerns with direct evidence and expected corrective actions.
Section 3: Minor Issues
Provide concise language, formatting, and presentation recommendations.
Section 4: Recommendation
State decision category and rationale clearly so editors can map outcomes transparently.
Quality Contribution Framework
Consistent contribution quality is measured through timeliness, clarity, methodological depth, and professional communication. Participants who maintain these standards create stronger editorial outcomes and higher trust across the publication ecosystem.
Operational Standards
Respond on time, use structured feedback, disclose conflicts, and keep recommendations evidence linked. Reliable process behavior is as important as technical expertise.
Professional Impact
High quality editorial or review service strengthens governance credibility, improves cross institutional visibility, and supports leadership opportunities in research quality programs.
Performance signal: sustained contribution quality over time matters more than volume. Reliable communication and strong evidence judgment build long term trust.
Role Consistency Standard
Editorial and reviewer quality is measured by consistency, not isolated performance. Use structured communication, evidence linked comments, and realistic timelines on every assignment. Reliable behavior improves decision quality, strengthens professional credibility, and supports long term collaboration with the journal leadership team.
Quality habit: maintain concise, evidence linked communication and realistic turnaround commitments on every assignment. Consistency at this level is what builds lasting editorial trust.
Document each contribution briefly and consistently. Reliable records support recognition, accountability, and long term editorial program quality.
Support Better Review Outcomes
Use structured reviewer comments and evidence linked recommendations to improve editorial decision quality.
