Reviewer Guidelines
Peer reviewers are essential to maintaining scientific quality in anesthesia research. These guidelines outline expectations for constructive, ethical, and timely review.
Review Standards
Provide objective, evidence based feedback.
- Assess methods and data
- Focus on clinical relevance
- Maintain confidentiality
Key Evaluation Areas
Scientific Rigor
Evaluate study design, statistical analysis, and transparency of anesthesia protocols.
Clinical Relevance
Assess whether findings impact perioperative decision making or patient outcomes.
Ethics And Safety
Confirm appropriate approvals, consent, and patient safety considerations.
Clarity Of Reporting
Comment on organization, clarity, and completeness of methods and results.
Reviewer Responsibilities
- Maintain confidentiality of all manuscripts and data.
- Declare conflicts of interest before accepting a review.
- Provide constructive, respectful feedback.
- Submit reviews within the requested timeframe.
Reviewers should not use unpublished data for personal research or share content without permission.
How To Organize Feedback
We encourage reviewers to separate major concerns from minor edits, and to highlight strengths as well as limitations. Focus on methodological rigor, clinical relevance, and transparency. Provide actionable recommendations to help authors improve the manuscript.
When applicable, comment on statistical analysis, reporting guidelines, and ethical considerations. Avoid personal remarks and maintain a professional tone.
Reviewer Responsibilities
Reviewers must treat manuscripts as confidential and should not share content or discuss findings prior to publication. If a conflict of interest exists, reviewers should decline the invitation.
Comments should be objective, evidence based, and focused on improving the manuscript. When recommending rejection, provide clear rationale and reference specific methodological concerns.
Helpful And Actionable Feedback
Comment on study limitations, but also highlight strengths and contributions. Provide recommendations that can be implemented within a reasonable revision timeline.
Clear Decision Advice
Provide a recommendation and brief rationale. Distinguish between essential revisions and optional suggestions to help editors make timely decisions.
Comment On Analysis
When possible, note whether statistical methods are appropriate and whether outcomes are reported with effect sizes and confidence intervals.
Make Recommendations Clear
Indicate whether you recommend acceptance, revision, or rejection, and provide specific reasons tied to methods and clinical relevance.
Respectful Feedback
Comments should focus on improving the manuscript and avoid personal remarks or dismissive language.
Prioritize Major Issues
Identify key methodological concerns first, then list minor suggestions to improve clarity or formatting.
Actionable Feedback
Focus on recommendations that can be addressed within a revision cycle.
Be Constructive
Offer practical suggestions that improve clarity and rigor.
