Reviewer Resources
Tools and guidance for high quality peer review.
Reviewer Resources for JDT
Resources help reviewers deliver consistent and constructive feedback.
Structured guidance supports high quality depression research.
TemplatesStandardized review forms.
Ethics SupportGuidance for complex cases.
Reporting StandardsChecklists for mental health research.
Editorial SupportDirect access to the editorial office.
Journal at a glance: ISSN 2476-1710 | DOI Prefix 10.14302/issn.2476-1710 | License CC BY 4.0 | Peer reviewed, open access journal.
Reviewer Toolkit
- Structured review templates and scoring rubrics
- Guidance on evaluating therapy outcomes
- Ethics and integrity escalation pathways
- Data transparency and reproducibility checklists
- Communication tips for constructive reviews
Support and Updates
- Editorial office support via [email protected]
- Updates on reporting standards for depression studies
- Resources on clinical trial reporting
- Guidance for handling revisions and rebuttals
Reviewer Support Toolkit
Resources help reviewers deliver consistent, high quality feedback.
- Structured review templates and rubrics
- Guidance for assessing therapy outcomes
- Ethics escalation pathways
- Data transparency checklists
- Conflict of interest guidance
- Reporting standards for clinical trials
- Tips for constructive feedback
- Support for statistical review questions
- Access to editorial policy updates
- Resources for handling revisions
- Contacts for technical support
- Orientation materials for new reviewers
Reviewer Best Practices
High quality reviews improve mental health evidence and outcomes.
- Summarize strengths and weaknesses clearly
- Recommend specific revisions when needed
- Assess applicability to clinical practice
- Note data transparency issues
- Evaluate measurement validity
- Highlight overinterpretation risks
- Check clarity of interventions described
- Review adherence and attrition reporting
- Provide respectful and constructive tone
- Flag ethical concerns if identified
Review Report Structure
Clear structure helps authors respond effectively to feedback.
- Summarize the main contribution of the paper
- List major issues that affect validity
- Identify minor revisions for clarity
- Comment on clinical relevance and impact
- Evaluate statistical and methodological rigor
- Check adherence to reporting standards
- Note any ethical or consent concerns
- Provide actionable recommendations
- Maintain respectful and professional tone
- Submit reviews within the agreed timeline
Need Reviewer Support?
Reach out for assistance with reviews or policies.
