Reviewer Guidelines

The peer review process is central to ensuring the quality and credibility of the Journal of Pulmonology and Respiratory Research (JPRR). Reviewers play a critical role in evaluating submissions and providing constructive feedback to authors and editors. These guidelines outline reviewer responsibilities, ethical standards, and best practices.

Responsibilities of Reviewers

  • Provide an objective, evidence-based evaluation of the manuscript’s quality, originality, and relevance.
  • Submit reviews within the agreed deadline, or inform editors promptly if more time is needed.
  • Highlight strengths as well as weaknesses to guide authors in improving their work.
  • Refrain from personal criticism and maintain a professional, respectful tone.

Ethical Standards

  • Maintain strict confidentiality—do not share or discuss manuscripts with others.
  • Do not use unpublished data or ideas for personal advantage.
  • Declare any conflicts of interest (financial, institutional, or personal) that could bias the review.
  • Report suspected ethical issues such as plagiarism, duplicate publication, or data manipulation.

Review Structure

Reviewers should structure their reports with clarity:

  1. Summary: Brief overview of the manuscript’s main findings.
  2. Major Issues: Concerns that affect validity, originality, or ethical compliance.
  3. Minor Issues: Editorial or technical points (grammar, formatting, citations).
  4. Recommendation: Accept, minor revision, major revision, or reject.

Criteria for Evaluation

  • Novelty and originality of the research.
  • Methodological rigor and reproducibility.
  • Clarity and logical presentation of results.
  • Appropriateness of references and citation practices.
  • Compliance with ethical standards for human/animal studies.

Confidentiality Expectations

Reviewers must:

  • Treat manuscripts as confidential documents.
  • Not contact authors directly without editor approval.
  • Ensure any colleagues consulted with permission maintain confidentiality.

Constructive Feedback

Effective feedback should be specific and actionable:

Instead of: “The methods are unclear.” Use: “Please clarify the inclusion criteria for patient selection and specify statistical tests applied.”

Reviewer Conduct

Reviewers must avoid:

  • Accepting reviews outside their expertise without consulting the editor.
  • Unreasonably delaying feedback.
  • Providing superficial or biased reviews.
  • Requesting citations of their own work unless directly relevant.

Recognition of Reviewers

  • JPRR acknowledges reviewer contributions annually.
  • Reviewers may opt-in to receive certificates of recognition.
  • Exceptional reviewers may be invited to join the editorial board.

FAQs

What if I cannot complete the review on time?

Inform the editor immediately so an alternative reviewer can be assigned.

Can I remain anonymous?

Yes. JPRR follows a single-blind or double-blind policy depending on article type. Reviewer anonymity is protected unless you choose to sign your review.

What should I do if I suspect plagiarism?

Notify the editor with detailed evidence; do not contact the authors directly.

Conclusion

By adhering to these guidelines, reviewers of JPRR contribute to the advancement of respiratory medicine, uphold ethical publishing practices, and support authors in strengthening their work.