Reviews should focus on study design, statistical validity, clinical relevance, and data transparency.

• Assess methodological rigor and clarity
• Evaluate ethical compliance and consent
• Provide constructive, actionable feedback
• Declare conflicts and maintain confidentiality

Reviewers should avoid personal commentary and focus on scientific validity and reporting quality.

• Brief summary of contribution
• Major concerns affecting validity
• Minor comments for clarity
• Recommendation with rationale

Timely reviews support author momentum. Notify the editorial office if you cannot meet the requested deadline.

If you cite additional literature, provide full references to help authors address comments accurately.

Clear organization of comments helps editors make consistent decisions.

Structured feedback also helps authors prioritize revisions and respond efficiently.

Reviewers must treat all submitted material as confidential and should not use data or ideas before publication.

If a conflict of interest is identified, decline the review promptly so the editorial office can assign another expert.

Constructive tone and evidence based feedback improve author response quality and final manuscript clarity.

Respectful communication supports a productive revision process.

Reviewers should avoid sharing manuscripts with colleagues without editorial permission.

Confidentiality expectations extend beyond the review period.

Ethical review practices strengthen the credibility of published work.

Check that data availability statements align with the methods and that datasets or code are accessible as described.

Confirm that statistical analyses are appropriate and that assumptions are clearly stated.

If methods are unclear, request clarification to support reproducibility and clinical interpretation.

Reviewers should note any missing details about sample size calculation or outcome definitions.

Clear requests for clarification improve the quality of the revised manuscript.

Consistent methodology review strengthens the overall evidence base.

Attention to reporting detail reduces the risk of misinterpretation in clinical translation.