Peer review
For Reviewers
What the Journal of Experimental and Clinical Toxicology asks of a reviewer, and how to judge a toxicological manuscript by the evidence it actually presents.
A review is most useful when it separates what the data show from what the authors conclude.
The assessment
Assess the claim against the evidence presented
Experimental and clinical toxicology answer different questions with different designs, and a review should hold each to its own standard. A cell or animal study is assessed on whether it establishes the mechanism it reports; it is not asked to demonstrate clinical benefit. A clinical report is assessed on what was observed and how it was documented; it is not asked for a laboratory model.
What both are asked is that the conclusion does not travel further than the design allows. Where it does, say so and say how far the evidence reaches.
Single-blind by default; double-blind review is available on request.
Reviewers are told which model applies when they are invited, and the journal accommodates a request for double-blind review at any point before review begins.
What to examine
The substance of a report
- The question
- Is it stated clearly, and does the design address it?
- Exposure and dose
- Are the substance, its purity and source, the route, the concentrations and the duration reported in enough detail for the result to be interpreted and repeated?
- Design and controls
- Are the controls, group sizes, randomization and blinding appropriate to the claim, and are the models used suitable for the endpoint measured?
- Analysis
- Are the statistical methods appropriate, the assumptions met, the effect sizes and variability reported, and the conclusions supported by the numbers presented?
- Reporting
- Are the relevant guideline and checklist followed, the ethics approvals reported, and the data availability stated?
- Interpretation
- Does the discussion acknowledge the limits of the design, and does it distinguish a mechanistic finding from a demonstrated clinical outcome?
Conduct
Confidentiality and handling
- Confidentiality
- A manuscript under review is confidential. It is not shared, discussed or used, and it is not passed to a colleague or a student without the editor’s agreement.
- Double-blind manuscripts
- For double-blind manuscripts, reviewers must not attempt to identify the authors.
- Competing interests
- Decline an invitation where a personal, professional, financial or competitive relationship with the authors or the work would make an impartial assessment difficult, and say so to the editor. Declining promptly, with a suggested alternative reviewer where possible, helps the author.
- Use of AI
- Reviewers must obtain journal permission before using AI to assist with a review. Any permitted use must be disclosed, and confidential manuscript content must not be uploaded where confidentiality cannot be assured.
- Files after review
- After submitting the review, reviewers should securely delete downloaded manuscript files and must not retain or use unpublished material.
- Suspected misconduct
- Report suspected plagiarism, duplicate publication, data fabrication or image manipulation to the handling editor rather than to the authors, with the specific passages or figures identified.
Writing the report
A structure that helps the editor and the author
- A short summary of what the manuscript reports, in your own words.
- Major points: the issues that determine whether the conclusions stand.
- Minor points: corrections and clarifications, numbered by section or line.
- A recommendation, with the reasoning that leads to it.
Confidential comments to the editor are for matters that cannot be put to the author directly, such as a suspected integrity problem.
Review invitations state the period in which a report is expected; tell the editor promptly if more time is needed so that the author is not left waiting.
Decisions remain independent of fees, membership, editorial roles and paid services. Reviewing confers no advantage in the review of the reviewer’s own submissions.
Journal of Experimental and Clinical Toxicology · ISSN 2641-7669 · Published by Open Access Pub.