Reviewer guidelines

For Reviewers

What a useful review does for this journal: test whether the evidence supports the claim, judged by the standards that suit the manuscript’s own design.

Journal of Spleen And Liver Research
ISSN 2578-2371
Published by Open Access Pub
Open access, peer-reviewed

Before you accept

Deciding whether to review

All submissions undergo initial editorial screening. Manuscripts that meet the journal's scope and minimum requirements proceed to independent peer review. 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.

ExpertiseAccept when you can assess the specific question. Partial expertise is useful if you say which part you are addressing.

ConflictsDecline where there is a competing interest — recent collaboration, a direct rivalry, a shared institution or a financial stake — and tell the editor why.

TimeAccept only if you can report within the agreed period, and tell the editorial office early if that changes.

ConfidentialityA manuscript under review is confidential. Do not share it, cite it, or use its content, and do not involve a colleague without the editor’s agreement.

AI useReviewers 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.

The review

What to assess, and against what standard

Judge the manuscript by what it claims. A descriptive series, a mechanistic experiment, a systematic review and a perspective are not held to one another’s standards.

QuestionIs the question clear, and does the work answer the question it sets?

DesignIs the design capable of supporting the claim? Say so plainly where a stronger design is needed for the conclusion drawn, and where the existing design is sufficient.

AnalysisAre the methods appropriate and reported in enough detail to be repeated? Where estimates are made, is the uncertainty reported?

ClaimsDoes each conclusion stay within the evidence? Association, mechanism and clinical effect are different claims and need different support.

ReportingAre the reporting requirements for this design met, including the relevant guideline checklist, ethics approval, consent and the data-availability statement?

LiteratureIs the relevant prior work cited fairly, including work that complicates the authors’ position?

Writing it

The report, and what happens to it

Write for two readers: the editor, who needs a judgment, and the author, who needs to know what to do. Be specific, cite the line or figure, and keep the tone one you would want to receive.

StructureA short summary of what the manuscript does, then the points that must be addressed, then the smaller points, each numbered so the author can answer them.

RecommendationRecommend to the editor; the decision is the editor’s. Editorial decisions are based on scope, scientific quality, methodological rigor, ethical compliance, reporting quality, and relevance to the journal.

Ethics concernsRaise any concern about authorship, consent, data integrity or image handling with the editor rather than in the author-facing report.

AnonymizationFor double-blind manuscripts, reviewers must not attempt to identify the authors.

AfterwardsAfter submitting the review, reviewers should securely delete downloaded manuscript files and must not retain or use unpublished material.

Where to go next

Aims and Scope

The full remit, the accepted article types and the subject boundary.

Instructions for Authors

Manuscript preparation, reporting requirements and what to submit.

Editorial Policies

Ethics, authorship, corrections, conflicts of interest and review.

Article Processing Charges

What is charged, when it applies and what it covers.

Editorial Board

Every editor, with affiliation and profile.

Submit a Manuscript