Reviewer Guidelines

Expectations for peer reviewers supporting preventive medicine research.

Reviewers provide expert assessment of prevention research quality, relevance, and clarity. The goal is to improve manuscripts and protect the integrity of the evidence base.

• Assess methodological rigor and public health relevance
• Provide constructive, specific feedback
• Identify ethical or data integrity concerns
• Submit reviews within agreed timelines
• Offer practical recommendations for improving impact

• Clarity of research question and prevention impact
• Appropriateness of study design and analysis
• Transparency in data and reporting
• Strength of conclusions and policy relevance
• Alignment with JPMC scope and population health priorities

• Brief summary of the manuscript and its contribution
• Major strengths and critical issues requiring revision
• Specific comments linked to sections or figures
• Recommendation with rationale (accept, revise, or reject)

Reviewers must maintain confidentiality, declare conflicts of interest, and avoid use of unpublished data.

If a conflict exists or the topic falls outside your expertise, notify the editorial office promptly.

Timely reviews support efficient decisions and author satisfaction. Typical review timelines are 14 to 21 days unless otherwise specified.

If additional time is required, communicate with the editorial office to adjust deadlines.

Reviews should be respectful, specific, and focused on improving the manuscript. Avoid personal language or unsupported criticism.

Use evidence-based reasoning when requesting changes, and differentiate major issues from minor edits.

• Requests to cite unrelated or self-serving references
• Unclear criticism without actionable guidance
• Disclosure of manuscript content outside review
• Comments that are personal or dismissive

• Prevention relevance and practical implications
• Methodological clarity and reproducibility
• Quality of data presentation and interpretation
• Alignment of conclusions with evidence

Clear, balanced reviews improve manuscript quality and strengthen prevention evidence for real-world application. Your feedback directly influences the usefulness of published findings and policy relevance.

JPMC supports authors, editors, and reviewers with timely guidance on scope, policies, and workflows. If you need clarification on requirements, data statements, or review timelines, contact the editorial office at [email protected]. We can provide templates, examples, and best-practice recommendations to help you move forward confidently. Our responses typically include next steps, resource links, and a clear point of contact. Early communication helps avoid delays, ensures consistent compliance, and improves the overall publication experience.