JHOR · ISSN 2372-6601
Guidelines for Reviewers
Peer reviewers assess the validity, rigor, clarity and field relevance of a manuscript. Reports should help the editor reach an evidence-based decision and help authors understand necessary revisions.
- Accept whenExpertise and time fit
- DiscloseRelevant conflicts
- ProtectConfidential content
- ReportSpecific evidence-based comments
Before accepting an invitation
- Expertise
- Accept only when the manuscript's subject and methods are within the reviewer's competence.
- Availability
- Confirm that the report can be returned within the requested period; decline promptly when it cannot.
- Conflicts
- Disclose financial, personal, institutional or collaborative relationships that may affect impartiality.
- Confidentiality
- Do not share the manuscript or consult another person without editorial permission.
Evaluation framework
The importance of each dimension depends on the study design.
Question and scope
Is the research question clear, relevant to hematology or oncology and supported by an appropriate design?
Methods and analysis
Are population, interventions, controls, endpoints, statistical methods and missing-data handling adequately described?
Results and interpretation
Are data presented consistently, uncertainty reported and conclusions limited to what the evidence supports?
Ethics and transparency
Are approvals, consent, registration, conflicts, funding, authorship and data availability addressed?
Figures and supporting files
Are images, tables, legends, units and supplements accurate, legible and necessary?
Contribution and context
Does the discussion represent prior work fairly and explain the manuscript's specific contribution and limitations?
Writing the report
Summarize the contribution
Briefly state the question, approach and overall evidential contribution.
Separate major and minor points
Prioritize issues that affect validity, interpretation, ethics or reproducibility before presentation edits.
Be specific and constructive
Refer to sections, tables or figures; explain why a change is needed and avoid comments about the authors personally.
Use confidential comments appropriately
Report suspected misconduct, privacy concerns or sensitive conflicts only to the editor.
Assess a revision against the response
Check whether each material concern was addressed and whether new analyses introduce further issues.
Confidentiality, AI and recognition
Do not use AI tools for manuscript review without journal permission
Reviewers must request permission from the journal before using AI to assist with a review. Any permitted AI use must be disclosed, and confidential manuscript content must not be uploaded where confidentiality cannot be assured. Reviewers remain responsible for the report.
Reviewing does not affect an author's own submissions
Reviewer service is separate from editorial assessment and confers no priority or advantage in review or acceptance.
Secure file handling
After submitting the review, reviewers should securely delete downloaded manuscript files and must not retain or use unpublished material.
Review the journal's policy framework
Editorial Policies provide the requirements that govern authors, editors and reviewers.