Reviewer Guidelines
What a useful review of a pain-management manuscript looks like, in the order a reviewer actually meets the work.
Judge the claim against its own design
The standard of evidence follows the claim. A mechanistic study, a measurement study and a clinical evaluation are each read against what their own design can support.
The journal publishes across mechanism, measurement, intervention, rehabilitation, services and lived experience, and no single paradigm is the yardstick for all of them. A qualitative study is read as qualitative work, a preclinical study as preclinical work, and a trial as a trial.
The most valuable thing a report can establish is whether the methods support the conclusions, and where the conclusions reach further than the evidence, exactly how far.
Before, during and after a review
Before accepting
Accept only if the subject and methods are within your competence, you have no competing interest with the authors or the work, and you can report within the agreed time. Declining promptly helps more than a late report.
Reading the work
Look at the question, the design chosen to answer it, the conduct and analysis, the reporting against the relevant guideline, and the ethics declarations. For double-blind manuscripts, reviewers must not attempt to identify the authors.
Writing the report
Open with what the manuscript sets out to do and what it establishes. Separate what must change from what would improve the work. Point to the page or line, and give a reason a reader could act on. Write about the manuscript, not the authors.
Confidentiality
A manuscript under review is confidential and unpublished. It is not shared with colleagues or students without the editor’s agreement, and nothing in it is used in your own work. 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
After submitting the review, reviewers should securely delete downloaded manuscript files and must not retain or use unpublished material.
How your report is used
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.
Editorial decisions are based on scope, scientific quality, methodological rigor, ethical compliance, reporting quality, and relevance to the journal.
The editor weighs the reports and the manuscript together; a recommendation is advice to the editor rather than the decision itself.
Editorial decisions are independent of fees, services, memberships and roles.
Reviewing confers no advantage in the review of a reviewer’s own submissions.