Reviewer Resources

Tools and guidance for high quality otolaryngology peer review.

JOA provides structured review templates to help reviewers comment on methodology, outcomes, and ethical compliance. Templates encourage consistent, actionable feedback.

Reviewers should check that manuscripts follow appropriate reporting standards such as CONSORT, STROBE, or PRISMA. This ensures transparency and reproducibility.

If you identify potential ethical issues, notify the editorial office. Guidance is available for conflicts of interest, data concerns, or authorship questions.

Provide feedback that is clear, professional, and focused on evidence. Constructive tone helps authors improve manuscripts and supports a positive review culture.

The editorial office shares periodic guidance on review best practices and methodological updates to support reviewer development.

Reviewers can request additional templates or checklists for specific study types, including clinical trials, imaging studies, and surgical technique reports.

Reviewers must keep manuscripts confidential and use submitted data only for review purposes. Any conflicts of interest should be disclosed so assignments can be reassigned if needed.

Ethical concerns, including potential plagiarism or data integrity issues, should be reported to the editorial office with clear evidence.

Professional, respectful feedback strengthens the review process and protects the scholarly record.

• Maintain confidentiality of manuscripts
• Disclose conflicts before accepting
• Flag ethics concerns to editors
• Provide objective, evidence based feedback
• Respect reviewer deadlines

Reviewer service improves critical appraisal skills and provides early access to emerging ENT research. These insights can inform clinical practice and future studies.

JOA acknowledges reviewer contributions and offers certificates or service documentation on request.

Consistent, high quality reviews can lead to invitations for editorial roles or special issue participation.

• Recognition for review service
• Certificates for professional records
• Opportunities for editorial advancement
• Improved critical appraisal skills
• Networking within ENT research

Reviewers receive structured templates and guidance on evaluating study design, outcomes, and ethical compliance. This support helps deliver consistent, actionable feedback.

If questions arise during review, the editorial office can provide clarification on scope, reporting standards, or conflict of interest expectations.

Clear communication strengthens review quality and improves author experience.

• Structured review templates
• Guidance on reporting standards
• Support for ethics questions
• Clarification on scope alignment
• Timely response expectations

Reviews are typically expected within 14 to 21 days. If additional time is required, notify the editorial office early.

Prompt reviews support the journal's decision timelines and improve author satisfaction.

• Confirm availability before accepting
• Communicate delays early
• Submit reviews on schedule

High quality reviews focus on study design, outcomes, and clarity. Comment on strengths as well as limitations so authors can improve clinical relevance and reporting quality.

When suggesting revisions, explain why changes are needed and cite specific sections to guide authors efficiently.

• Assess methods and outcomes clearly
• Check ethics approvals and consent
• Review figures and data accuracy
• Note gaps in clinical interpretation