Reviewer Guidelines
Reviewers are essential to maintaining scientific rigor and patient safety at JRNM. These guidelines outline expectations for constructive, timely, and ethical peer review across clinical and technical disciplines.
Reviewer Expectations
Maintain scientific rigor
Reviewers should evaluate manuscripts for methodological rigor, dosimetry accuracy, data transparency, and relevance to radiation and nuclear medicine practice. Reviews should be objective and focused on improving the manuscript.
Core Review Criteria
Research Question
Clear and clinically relevant
Methods
Robust, reproducible, and safe
Data
Availability and integrity
Results
Evidence supports conclusions
Ethics and Conduct
Confidentiality: Manuscripts and data are confidential and must not be shared.
Timelines: Complete reviews within the agreed timeframe or notify the office promptly.
Constructive Feedback: Provide actionable guidance and separate major from minor issues.
Conflicts: Disclose conflicts and decline reviews where bias is possible.
Become a reviewer for JRNM
Register to join the reviewer community and support scientific integrity.
Review Structure
Organize feedback for clarity
A strong review includes a short summary, major issues, minor comments, and recommendations. Focus on methodology, data integrity, and clinical relevance rather than stylistic preferences.
Review Tone
Professional and constructive feedback
Maintain a professional and respectful tone. Highlight strengths as well as areas for improvement to support constructive revisions.
Data Transparency
Flag missing information
Highlight missing data availability statements, incomplete dosimetry details, or unclear imaging protocols so authors can address them directly.
Conflict of Interest
Disclose potential bias
Declare conflicts promptly and decline reviews when impartiality could be compromised.
Review Structure
Organize feedback
Provide a brief summary, major issues, minor comments, and clear recommendations. Focus on methods, data integrity, and clinical significance.
Revision Guidance
Actionable feedback
Distinguish essential revisions from optional improvements and provide clear, evidence based recommendations to help authors respond efficiently.
Confidentiality
Protect patient data
Do not share manuscripts or patient related data outside the review process. Confidentiality supports trust and regulatory compliance.
Review Scope
Focus on science
Concentrate on methods, data integrity, and clinical relevance rather than stylistic preferences.
Conflict Reminder
Declare early
Disclose conflicts of interest before accepting a review to maintain transparency and trust.
Clarity Note
Help authors
Clear, concise feedback improves revision quality and reduces review cycles.
Review Focus
Stay objective
Base recommendations on evidence and methodology.
Brief Reminder
Stay focused
Prioritize evidence and methodology.
