Independent assessment
A useful JWRH review tests the validity, ethics, reporting and reproductive-health relevance of a manuscript and explains concerns constructively.
Peer review: Single-blind by default; double-blind review is available on request.
Manuscripts that proceed to external peer review are normally evaluated by at least two independent subject-matter experts.
For double-blind manuscripts, reviewers must not attempt to identify the authors.
Assess the claim, evidence and reporting rather than rewriting the paper according to personal preference.
Is the central reproductive-biology, gynecologic or sexual-health question clear and within scope, including related care, experience, rights and access across the lifespan? Basic and preclinical work may fit without demonstrated clinical benefit.
Are the design, model or participant selection, controls, measures, analyses and uncertainty appropriate to the research stage? Distinguish biological and technical replication in experiments, and assess context and sampling in qualitative work.
Are results reported completely, with conclusions proportionate to the evidence? Cellular and animal findings do not establish human treatment efficacy or safety, and observational associations do not by themselves establish causation.
Are protocols, reporting guidelines, data availability, materials and limitations described sufficiently for evaluation and reuse?
State the question and principal contribution briefly to show how the manuscript was understood.
Prioritize concerns that affect validity, ethics, interpretation or reproducibility and explain what evidence or revision is needed.
List specific corrections to clarity, terminology, tables, figures or references without obscuring the substantive review.
Choose the available recommendation and justify it. The recommendation is advisory; the editor makes the decision.
Editorial decisions are based on scope, scientific quality, methodological rigor, ethical compliance, reporting quality, and relevance to the journal.
Recommend only citations that materially improve accuracy or context. Do not request irrelevant citations, excessive self-citations, or citations intended to benefit JWRH or its publisher.
Send suspected misconduct or participant-safety concerns privately to the editor rather than contacting the authors.
After submitting the review, reviewers should securely delete downloaded manuscript files and must not retain or use unpublished material.
Reviewing is a scholarly responsibility. It confers no advantage in the review or acceptance of a reviewer’s own manuscript.