International Journal of Neonatology
For Reviewers
What the International Journal of Neonatology asks of a peer reviewer: what to assess, how to write the report, and the confidentiality and independence that govern the work.
01
Purpose
What a review is for
Peer reviewers evaluate manuscripts for validity, rigor, and clarity.
Advice, not the decision
A review advises the handling editor. The editor weighs it against the manuscript and any other reviews, and makes the decision.
The review model
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.
What the editor is deciding
Editorial decisions are based on scope, scientific quality, methodological rigor, ethical compliance, reporting quality, and relevance to the journal.
A review is most useful when it speaks to these grounds and says which of them a concern bears on.
Reviewing and your own work
Reviewing confers no advantage in the review of the reviewer’s own submissions.
02
The invitation
Accepting or declining
The invitation names the manuscript, the review model that applies, what the editor needs the review to establish, and the date by which it is needed.
Accept when you can do it justice
Accept where the manuscript falls within your expertise, you have no competing interest, and you can return the review by the date the invitation gives. Where only part of a manuscript falls within your expertise, say which part you can speak to and the editor will seek the rest elsewhere.
Decline promptly
Declining quickly helps more than a late review. Suggesting a colleague who could review it instead is welcome, and the editor decides independently of that suggestion.
If you need longer
Tell the editorial office as soon as that becomes clear, so the editor can decide whether to wait or to invite another reviewer.
03
Assessment
What to assess
The questions below apply to research manuscripts. For a review, case report or protocol, assess the manuscript against the reporting guideline its design calls for.
The question and its context
Whether the study addresses a defined question in newborn health, and whether the introduction establishes what was already known and what this work adds.
Design and conduct
Whether the design can answer the question asked; whether inclusion and exclusion criteria, the intervention or exposure, and outcome definitions are stated clearly enough to be repeated.
Defining the population
Outcomes in the newborn turn on maturity and weight. Check that gestational age and birth weight are reported with how they were determined, and that the age at which each outcome was assessed is given.
Analysis
Whether the analysis matches the design and the outcomes as prespecified, how missing data were handled, and whether estimates are reported with confidence intervals rather than significance alone. Small samples are common in this field; the question is whether the conclusions are proportionate to the evidence.
Ethics and consent
Whether the manuscript names the research ethics committee and gives its reference, states that consent was given by a parent or legal guardian, and reports trial registration where the study is an interventional trial.
Reporting completeness
Whether the reporting checklist for the study design has been followed, whether figures and tables are legible and self-explanatory, and whether the data-availability statement says where the data can be found and on what terms.
Conclusions
Whether the conclusions follow from the results presented, whether limitations are acknowledged, and whether any clinical implication drawn is supported by the evidence in the paper.
04
The report
Writing the report
A useful report tells the editor what is sound, what is not, and what would settle the difference.
Open with the study
A short summary of what the manuscript reports, in your own words. It shows the editor and the authors what a careful reader took from it.
Separate the essential from the optional
Number the points, and mark which must be addressed for the work to be sound and which would improve it. That distinction is what an editor most needs.
Give the reason and, where you can, the remedy
Point to the section, figure or table at issue, say why it is a problem, and where an analysis or additional detail would resolve it, say so.
Address the work, not the authors
Comments describe the manuscript and its evidence. A report is read by the authors, so write it as you would wish to receive it.
Confidential comments to the editor
Matters you would not put to the authors directly, including a suspicion of misconduct, go in the confidential comments to the editor.
Recommendation
Give your recommendation, and make sure the report supports it. Where reviewers disagree, the editor resolves the disagreement on the evidence or seeks a further opinion.
05
Independence
Independence and conflicts
A review answers to the evidence and to the journal’s scope. It answers to nothing else.
Independence of the assessment
Decisions remain independent of fees, services, membership, and editorial or reviewer roles.
The article processing charge is invoiced after acceptance and has no part in the assessment. A reviewer is never asked to consider whether an author can pay or what a decision means for the journal commercially.
Declining for a competing interest
A reviewer with a competing interest in a manuscript declines the assignment and tells the editorial office, which reassigns it. Financial interests, recent collaboration, a shared institution, or a direct competitive interest in the result all qualify.
Double-blind manuscripts
For double-blind manuscripts, reviewers must not attempt to identify the authors.
If you recognize the authors regardless, tell the editorial office so the editor can judge whether the assignment should continue.
Reviewing your own field fairly
Disagreeing with a hypothesis is not a ground for rejection. Assess whether the work was done and reported well enough for its claims to stand.
If a consideration would not belong in the report, it does not belong in the review.
06
Confidentiality
Confidentiality, files and AI
A manuscript under review is confidential
An unpublished manuscript is confidential. It is not shared, discussed outside the review process, or used in your own work, and its content is not cited or circulated before publication.
Involving a colleague
Ask the editorial office before involving anyone else in a review. Where this is agreed, name the person in the report so their contribution is recorded.
AI tools
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.
This covers all externally hosted AI tools, not only publicly available ones.
After submitting the review
After submitting the review, reviewers should securely delete downloaded manuscript files and must not retain or use unpublished material.
07
Integrity
Raising an integrity concern
The journal’s requirements are set out in Editorial Policies; what follows is what a reviewer does with them.
What to report
Where you suspect fabrication, falsification, plagiarism, image manipulation or duplicate submission, say so in the confidential comments to the editor and give the specific basis for the concern.
Report the concern, do not investigate it
The editorial office takes the matter from there. Allegations are investigated following the COPE flowcharts, and the corresponding author is given the opportunity to respond.
Similarity
A similarity report is read in context by an editor and is never applied as an automatic threshold. Where you recognize text or figures from elsewhere, identify the source you have in mind.
Undisclosed interests
Where the manuscript appears to omit a funding source or competing interest you are aware of, tell the editor.
Related
Editorial office
Questions about a review in progress, and offers to review for the journal, are welcome at [email protected].
- Editorial PoliciesReview, ethics, rights and the published record.
- For EditorsHow a manuscript is handled from arrival to decision.
- Instructions for AuthorsWhat authors are asked to supply.
- Aims and ScopeWhat the journal publishes and where its boundaries fall.
The editors who commission reviews and take the decisions they inform.