For reviewers
Reviewer Guidelines
A review is an expert reading of whether a manuscript’s claims are supported by what it reports. It is advice to the editor and guidance to the authors.
The journal asks reviewers to assess the work in front of them, on the terms it sets for itself.
ISSN 2578-8590 · Published by Open Access Pub · Open access under CC BY 4.0
Before accepting
Deciding whether to review
Accept an invitation when the manuscript falls within your expertise and you can complete the review properly. Decline, with a note of the reason, where it does not, and suggest an alternative reviewer where you can.
Declare any competing interest before beginning. A shared institution, a recent collaboration or a commercial interest in the outcome are all grounds to decline.
For double-blind manuscripts, reviewers must not attempt to identify the authors.
Single-blind by default; double-blind review is available on request.
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.
The review
What to evaluate
- Claims against evidence
Establish what the manuscript claims, then whether the conditions, measurements and analysis reported support that claim. Hold the work to the standard its own claims require: a descriptive, comparative, methodological or modeling study is not assessed as though it were an intervention trial.
- Methods
Judge whether the methods are appropriate to the question, reported in enough detail to be repeated, and applied to a sample or preparation adequate for the conclusions drawn.
- Analysis and reporting
Check that the analysis suits the data and that results are reported with the uncertainty attached to them.
- Interpretation
Note where conclusions run ahead of the evidence, and say what would be needed to support them. Confirmatory findings, negative results and careful description are legitimate contributions; novelty is not a condition of publication.
- Literature
Identify work that should have been cited. Do not require citation of your own work as a condition of a favorable review.
- Clarity
Report whether a competent reader in the field could follow what was done and why. Write comments the authors can act on.
After the review
Confidentiality and files
A manuscript under review is confidential. Do not share it, discuss it outside the review, or use its unpublished content.
After submitting the review, reviewers should securely delete downloaded manuscript files and must not retain or use unpublished material.
The recommendation is advice; the decision rests with the editor.
Editorial decisions are independent of fees, services, membership, and editorial or reviewer roles.
International Physiology Journal
ISSN 2578-8590 · Published by Open Access Pub · Open access under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0) license · Article DOIs use the publisher prefix 10.14302.