Reviewer Guidelines
JLCE relies on expert reviewers to evaluate scientific quality and public health relevance.
These guidelines outline how to provide constructive and timely reviews.
Key elements to assess
Study design
Assess cohort, case control, or registry design quality.
Bias control
Evaluate confounding adjustment and bias mitigation.
Statistical methods
Confirm appropriate analysis and reporting.
Data integrity
Check consistency across text, tables, and figures.
Public health relevance
Assess implications for prevention or screening.
Clarity
Evaluate organization and readability.
Expectations for reviewers
Confidentiality
Do not share manuscript content.
Conflict disclosure
Declare conflicts and decline if needed.
Constructive feedback
Provide actionable, evidence based comments.
Timeliness
Submit reviews by the agreed deadline.
Professional tone
Avoid personal remarks or bias.
Ethics concerns
Flag integrity issues to the editor.
How to structure your review
Start with a brief summary of the study and your overall assessment. Then provide major comments followed by minor comments.
If recommending rejection, explain the critical methodological issues that cannot be resolved through revision.
How to deliver useful feedback
Anchor comments to specific sections, tables, or figures so authors can respond efficiently.
Separate major concerns from minor suggestions to clarify priorities.
Balance critique with recognition of strengths to guide revision.
Reviewer responsibilities
Confidentiality
Do not share manuscripts or data with others.
Conflict disclosure
Declare conflicts immediately and decline if needed.
Bias avoidance
Evaluate methods rather than author reputation.
Data integrity
Flag suspected fabrication or manipulation.
Professional tone
Avoid personal remarks and maintain respect.
Timeliness
Submit reviews within agreed timelines.
Assessing analytic rigor
Confirm that statistical models align with study design and that assumptions are justified.
Check that confidence intervals and effect sizes are reported alongside P values.
Building clear and actionable reviews
Organize feedback by major and minor issues so authors can prioritize revisions.
Reference specific tables, figures, or sections to avoid ambiguity.
Highlight strengths alongside critiques to maintain constructive tone.
Key checks to include
Flag missing denominators, exposure definitions, or outcome measures that affect validity.
Recommend additional sensitivity analyses when confounding may be unaddressed.
Concise, evidence based reviews accelerate decisions and help authors improve public health impact.
Become a JLCE Reviewer
Help evaluate epidemiology evidence and improve the quality of published research.
