Reviewer Guide

 

Before accepting or declining an invitation to review, please consider the following questions:

Q1) Does the article match your area of expertise? Only accept if you feel you can provide a high-quality review.

Q2) Do you have a potential conflict of interest? Disclose this to the editor when responding.

Q3) Do you have time? Reviewing can be a lot of work – make sure you can meet the deadline before committing.

How to Peer Review for JEH

Reviewer reports should comprehensively critique the submission and consist of much more than a few brief sentences. JEH does not require a specific structure for reports; however, a suggested format is:

  • Summary

  • Major Issues

  • Minor Issues

We encourage reviewers to help authors improve their manuscripts. Reports should provide constructive analysis, especially when revisions are recommended. If reviewers wish to keep certain comments confidential, they can be added in the “Comments to the Editor-in-Chief” section.

Although expectations vary by discipline, some core aspects that reviewers should critique include:

  • Are the research questions valid?

  • Is the sample size sufficient?

  • Is there necessary ethical approval and/or consent, and was the research ethical?

  • Are the methods and study design appropriate for answering the research question?

  • Do the experiments have appropriate controls?

  • Is the reporting of methods, including equipment and materials, sufficiently detailed for reproduction?

  • Are the statistical tests appropriate and correctly reported?

  • Are the figures and tables clear and accurately representing the results?

  • Has previous research by the authors and others been discussed and compared with the current results?

  • Are there any inappropriate citations, e.g., not supporting the claims or excessive self-citations?

  • Do the results support the conclusions?

  • Are the limitations of the research acknowledged?

  • Is the abstract an accurate summary of the research and results, without spin?

  • Is the language clear and understandable?

To ensure timely reviews, reports should be submitted via the manuscript tracking system on or before the agreed deadline. If reviewers cannot meet the deadline, they should contact JEH to arrange an alternative date.

We encourage reviewers to focus on objectively critiquing the scientific aspects of the submission, including the soundness of the methodology and whether the conclusions are supported by the results. Comments on novelty and potential impact are also welcome. At the end of the review, reviewers are asked to recommend one of the following actions:

  • Accept

  • Minor Revision

  • Major Revision

  • Reject

  • Unable to Review

Confidentiality

Manuscripts under peer review must remain strictly confidential. Reviewers must not share manuscripts or discuss their content with anyone outside the peer review process.

Reviewers may consult with colleagues from their research group if necessary, ensuring manuscript confidentiality is maintained. Reviewers should first contact JEH or the Editor-in-Chief and list the colleagues’ names in the “Comments to the Editor” section.

Conflicts of Interest

Reviewers should decline to review a submission if they:

  • Have a financial interest in the subject of the research.

  • Have previously discussed the manuscript with the authors.

  • Feel unable to provide an objective review.

Applications to Review

We welcome applications to join the JEH peer reviewer community. The Editorial Board selects reviewers on a manuscript-by-manuscript basis, inviting the most suitable scientists from their specialty and/or publication list. To ensure your contact information is up to date, interested reviewers should register for a user account.