Reviewer GuidelinesJournal of Ulcers
Provide constructive reviews that strengthen ulcer research.
Principles of Peer Review
Reviewers provide objective feedback that improves study quality, reporting, and clinical relevance.
What to Evaluate
Focus on methodology, interpretation, ethical compliance, and clarity of clinical implications.
Confidentiality and Conflicts
Maintain confidentiality and decline reviews when conflicts could affect impartiality.
Join the Reviewer Network
Register as a reviewer and support high quality ulcer research.
Email the Editorial OfficeRequest InformationEmail: [email protected]
JU Commitment
We emphasize quality, transparency, and timely communication to support the ulcer research community.
Quality and Consistency
Editors and reviewers apply consistent criteria to assess methodological rigor, reporting clarity, and clinical relevance. This shared standard helps authors understand expectations and improves the reliability of published findings.
Timely Communication
Prompt responses to invitations and clear timelines help maintain an efficient review workflow. When delays arise, the editorial office coordinates updates so authors remain informed.
Ethics and Confidentiality
All participants in the editorial process are expected to respect confidentiality and disclose conflicts of interest. Ethical oversight protects patients, researchers, and the integrity of the record.
Recognition and Growth
Editorial and review service builds professional reputation and supports career development. JU provides acknowledgement and can confirm service upon request.
Decision Documentation
Clear notes on strengths, limitations, and required revisions help authors respond effectively. Consistent documentation also supports fair decision making across ulcer research submissions.
Editorial Office Support
The editorial office assists with logistics, reminders, and policy guidance so editors and reviewers can focus on scientific quality. This partnership keeps the workflow professional and reliable.
Evidence Focus
Assess conclusions against the data presented and confirm that limitations are stated clearly. Emphasizing evidence based decision making strengthens clinical utility and protects patients.
Respectful Tone
Feedback should be constructive and professional, even when recommending major revisions. A respectful tone encourages productive author engagement and improves the quality of revisions.
Decision Consistency
Apply similar standards across submissions to ensure fairness. Consistent decisions strengthen author confidence and reinforce the credibility of the journal.
Timeliness
Accept review requests only when you can meet the deadline. Early responses help maintain efficient decision timelines. If more time is needed, notify the office quickly so adjustments can be made without delaying authors. We appreciate upfront commitments and clear availability.
