Peer review · Evidence assessment · Confidentiality
A useful review is specific, independent, and proportionate to the evidence
JPMC reviewers assess the manuscript's prevention relevance, design, analysis, ethics, reporting, and interpretation. The report should help the editor reach a defensible decision and help authors understand necessary revisions.
Before accepting an invitation
Accept only when the topic and methods are within your competence, the proposed schedule is feasible, and you can provide an independent assessment.
- Declare financial, professional, institutional, collaborative, competitive, personal, or intellectual conflicts to the editorial office.
- Decline when the manuscript is outside your expertise or the available time would prevent a careful review.
- Keep the manuscript, author identities, correspondence, and review confidential. Do not contact authors directly.
- Do not use unpublished ideas, data, or methods for personal advantage.
- Inform the editorial office before involving a co-reviewer; disclose that person's identity, contribution, and conflicts.
- After submitting the review, securely delete downloaded manuscript files and do not retain or use unpublished material.
No editorial advantage
Reviewing confers no advantage in the review or acceptance of the reviewer's own work. Reviewer recognition, where available, is separate from manuscript decisions.
Evaluate the question, methods, and interpretation
Focus on issues that materially affect validity, reproducibility, ethical acceptability, interpretation, or journal fit.
Prevention relevance
Is the prevention mechanism clear? Are the population, setting, exposure or intervention, and outcome relevant to JPMC's scope?
Study design
Are sampling, comparison, measurement, bias control, follow-up, and analysis suitable for the question?
Statistics
Are effect estimates, uncertainty, missing data, confounding, multiplicity, assumptions, and sensitivity analyses handled transparently?
Ethics and privacy
Are approvals, consent, registration, surveillance or secondary-data governance, and protection of sensitive health information adequate?
Reporting and data
Does the manuscript follow the relevant guideline and provide enough data, code, protocol, or availability information to evaluate the work?
Conclusions
Do conclusions reflect the design, estimates, uncertainty, limitations, and applicability without overstating causality or policy implications?
Structure the report for action
Brief overall assessment
State the question, contribution, and principal strength or limitation in neutral language.
Major issues
Prioritize problems that affect validity, ethics, transparency, scope, or interpretation. Explain why each matters and what evidence or clarification is needed.
Minor issues
Group specific corrections to terminology, presentation, references, tables, figures, or reporting without turning the review into copyediting.
Confidential note to the editor
Use it for conflicts, suspected misconduct, legal or privacy concerns, or reasoning that should not be disclosed immediately. Do not contradict the author-facing report without explanation.
Constructive tone
Critique the work, not the authors. Avoid hostile, discriminatory, dismissive, or speculative language and requests for unrelated or self-serving citations.
Misconduct concerns, confidentiality, and AI tools
Suspected plagiarism, fabrication, or manipulation
Describe the concern and evidence privately to the editor. Do not investigate authors independently or make accusations in the author-facing report.
Image, data, or reproducibility concerns
Identify the affected item, explain the anomaly, and state what source data, uncropped image, code, protocol, or clarification could resolve it.
Use of AI tools
Reviewers must obtain journal permission before using AI to assist with a review. Any permitted use must be disclosed, every output must be verified, and confidential manuscript content must not be uploaded where confidentiality cannot be assured. The reviewer remains responsible for the report.
Unable to complete the review
Notify the editorial office promptly. Do not submit a superficial or generated report merely to meet a deadline. A revised schedule must be agreed with the office.
Make a recommendation that matches the report
The recommendation is advice to the editor, not a decision. Use the available system category and ensure the report explains the scientific and ethical basis.
Accept or minor revision
The evidence is sound and remaining changes do not alter the principal design, analysis, or conclusion.
Major revision
Substantial clarification or analysis may resolve important concerns without requiring an entirely new study.
Reject
Scope, validity, ethics, originality, or evidence limitations cannot reasonably be resolved through revision.
Unable to recommend
A conflict or expertise limitation discovered during review prevents an independent conclusion; contact the editor immediately.
Under single-blind review, reviewer identities are not disclosed to authors by default. Where double-blind review has been requested, protect both author and reviewer anonymity and report accidental identification to the editorial office.
Need to disclose a conflict or report an integrity concern?
Use the manuscript record or contact the editorial office. Do not contact authors, institutions, or third parties independently.
Journal of Preventive Medicine and Care · ISSN 2474-3585 · Aims & Scope · Editorial Policies · APC