Reviewer Guidelines
Standards and expectations for peer reviewers at JSN
Reviewer Responsibilities
Reviewers should evaluate manuscripts objectively based on scientific merit, clinical validity, and methodological rigor. Reviews should be constructive, identifying strengths and weaknesses while providing specific, actionable suggestions for improvement relevant to spine and neuroscience research.
- Respond to review invitations within 48 hours
- Complete reviews within agreed timelines (typically 14-21 days)
- Provide thorough, balanced assessments of scientific and clinical quality
- Identify methodological concerns with specific recommendations
- Evaluate clarity, organization, and clinical significance
- Recommend appropriate editorial decisions with justification
Ethical Standards
Reviewers must maintain strict confidentiality regarding manuscript content. Decline invitations when conflicts of interest exist including recent collaboration, competitive relationships, or personal connections. Do not use unpublished information for personal advantage. Report suspected misconduct to handling editors confidentially.
Writing Effective Reviews
Effective reviews begin with a summary demonstrating understanding of the manuscripts goals. Distinguish major concerns from minor issues. Provide specific, constructive recommendations explaining why changes would strengthen clinical or scientific contributions. Balance recognition of merit with identification of limitations in spine and neuroscience research.
Timeliness: Authors depend on timely reviews for career advancement. If you cannot complete a review within the timeframe, decline promptly so alternatives can be engaged.
Conflict Management
Decline invitations when conflicts of interest exist including recent collaboration, competitive relationships, financial interests in outcomes, or personal relationships influencing objectivity. If conflicts are discovered after agreeing to review, notify the handling editor immediately.
If you recognize authorship despite blinding, evaluate whether you can provide objective assessment. Decline if prior interactions could influence evaluation or create uncomfortable future interactions in the spine and neuroscience community.
Constructive Feedback
Balanced reviews acknowledge manuscript strengths while identifying areas needing improvement. Constructive recommendations help authors develop work and advance contributions to clinical practice. Consider both what the manuscript achieves and how it could be improved for spine and neuroscience readers.
Quality peer review advances spine and neuroscience scholarship through fair evaluation and constructive feedback helping authors improve clinical research communications. Your expertise ensures rigorous assessment of submitted manuscripts benefiting the scientific community and ultimately patient care.
Your thoughtful evaluation advances both individual manuscripts and broader spine and neuroscience literature. We appreciate expertise and time you contribute to maintaining publication quality.
