Journal of Pediatric Health and Nutrition
For Reviewers
What the journal asks of a reviewer: how to decide whether to accept an invitation, what a review should cover, and what a reviewer must not do.
Reviewing for the journal is voluntary and carries no advantage in the review of a reviewer's own work.
- Review model
- Single-blind by default; double-blind review is available on request.
- Per manuscript
- Normally at least two independent reviewers
- Confidentiality
- Absolute, before and after the review
The invitation
Accepting or declining
Answering quickly, either way, is the single most useful thing a reviewer does for the authors.
- Expertise. Accept where you can judge the specific question, not merely the general field. Where you can assess part of a manuscript — the statistics, the nutritional assessment, the clinical reasoning — say so, and review that part.
- Conflicts. Decline where you have worked with an author recently, share an institution, supervise or are supervised by one of them, have a commercial interest, or hold any relationship that would make an impartial reading difficult. If in doubt, describe it to the editor and let the editor decide.
- Double-blind manuscripts. For double-blind manuscripts, reviewers must not attempt to identify the authors.
- Capacity and confidentiality. Decline if you cannot complete the review in the time agreed with the editor, and suggest an alternative reviewer if you can. An invitation, and anything it discloses about an unpublished manuscript, is confidential whether or not you accept.
The review
What a review should cover
The question throughout is whether the manuscript supports what it claims, and whether a reader could tell.
- The question
- Is it stated clearly, and does the study design answer it? Say so when a different design would have been needed, and be specific about why.
- Methods
- Could the study be repeated from what is written? Check participant selection and numbers, the setting, the period, what was given or measured and how, and the handling of missing data and loss to follow-up.
- Pediatric reporting
- Is the age band stated as measured rather than described generally, is the setting identified, and are the conclusions confined to the ages and settings actually studied?
- Statistics
- Are the tests appropriate, the assumptions met, and the results reported with effect estimates and confidence intervals rather than p-values alone? Say when a statistical opinion beyond your own is needed.
- Claims
- Do the conclusions follow from the results? Observational findings describe associations; efficacy claims need a design that can support them. Nutritional and clinical recommendations need evidence proportionate to what they ask a clinician to do.
- Figures, tables and data
- Do they show what the text says, without duplicating it? Are images free of material that could identify a child? Does the data-availability statement match what the manuscript describes?
- Literature
- Is the relevant work cited and fairly represented? Note omissions, but do not ask for citations to your own work as a condition of a favorable review.
Two separate judgments
Fit and evidence are assessed apart
Whether the subject belongs in this journal is settled by the approved remit; whether the evidence supports the claims is the reviewer's judgment.
A manuscript can be squarely within the journal's remit and still need more evidence, narrower conclusions or a different analysis. Say which it is: a scope question goes to the editor, an evidence question belongs in the review.
The journal does not ask you to require
- Novelty, a mechanism, or a demonstrated clinical benefit as a condition of acceptance. Confirmatory studies, replications and well-conducted null results are within the journal's remit.
- A particular study design, where the design used answers the question asked.
- English of native-speaker fluency. Language that obscures the science is a reason to ask for revision; an accent in the prose is not.
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.
After submitting the review, reviewers should securely delete downloaded manuscript files and must not retain or use unpublished material.
Writing it
Form of the review and what happens next
A review that an author can act on is worth more than a verdict.
- Structure. Open with a short summary of what the manuscript reports, so the editor can see how you read it. Then give numbered points, separating those that must be addressed from those that would improve the paper.
- Tone. Write about the work, not the authors. Courtesy costs nothing and makes criticism easier to act on.
- Recommendation. Recommend acceptance, revision or rejection, and give the reasons. The recommendation advises the editor, who makes the decision.
- Confidential comments. Concerns you would not put to the authors — a suspicion of duplicate publication, an undeclared conflict, an ethics problem — go to the editor in the confidential section, with what led you to them.
- Revisions. If you are asked to see a revision, check whether each point has been addressed or answered, and avoid raising new requirements that could have been made the first time.
- Suspected misconduct. Report plagiarism, image manipulation, fabrication or an undisclosed overlap to the editor rather than investigating it yourself.
Reviewing for the journal
Offering to review
Researchers and clinicians working in pediatric health or nutrition are welcome to offer to review. Write to the editorial office with your field, your methodological strengths and a link to your publication record.
- The remit
- Aims and Scope
- The rules
- Editorial Policies
- Contact
- [email protected]
Reviewing confers no advantage in the review of a reviewer's own submissions.