Instruction for Reviewers

Peer review is an essential component of the editorial process of the Journal of Clinical Question. Reviewers are selected on the basis of their relevant subject and methodological expertise and are expected to provide independent, objective, and constructive assessments of submitted manuscripts.

Manuscripts that proceed to external peer review are normally evaluated by at least two independent external reviewers. The final editorial decision remains the responsibility of the handling editor or Editor-in-Chief.

Procedure

• Upon receiving an invitation, reviewers should confirm that the manuscript falls within their area of expertise and that they are able to complete the review within the requested timeframe.
• Reviewers who are unable to undertake the review should decline the invitation promptly. They may suggest alternative qualified reviewers; however, reviewer invitations must not be transferred to another individual.
• Before accepting a review, reviewers should disclose any actual or potential competing interests involving the authors, institutions, funding sources, or subject matter of the manuscript.
• Reviewers should assess the manuscript with regard to scientific validity, methodological rigor, originality, clarity, relevance to the journal's scope, and compliance with appropriate reporting standards.
• If additional time is required or a competing interest becomes apparent during the review process, reviewers should contact the handling editor promptly.
• If reviewers identify serious ethical, methodological, reporting, or publication concerns, these should be communicated to the editor with an appropriate explanation.

Important Notes

• Manuscripts submitted for review must be treated as confidential documents. Reviewers should not share, discuss, reproduce, or use unpublished information contained in a manuscript for personal or professional advantage.
• Reviewers should not contact authors directly regarding a manuscript under review.
• Reviews should be objective, evidence-based, constructive, and expressed in professional language. Personal criticism or offensive remarks are not acceptable.
• Comments intended only for the editor should be clearly identified as confidential and should not contradict the substantive comments provided to the authors without appropriate explanation.
• Reviewers should provide a clear recommendation together with sufficient reasoning to support their assessment.
• Reviewer recommendations are advisory. The final decision regarding acceptance, revision, or rejection rests solely with the handling editor or Editor-in-Chief.
• Reviewers should disclose any relevant competing interests that arise before or during the review process and should withdraw from the review when their independence or objectivity may reasonably be questioned.
• Reviewers should not retain or distribute confidential manuscript materials after completion of the review, except where permitted by the journal's editorial system or required for legitimate editorial purposes.

Review model and publication of review history

JCQ uses single-blind peer review: reviewers know the authors' identities, while reviewers' identities are normally withheld from authors. For accepted peer-reviewed articles, anonymized peer-review records are normally published as supplementary information, subject to the authors' consent and the journal's confidentiality safeguards. These may include reviewer reports, authors' responses, and relevant editorial decisions.

Confidential comments to editors are excluded. Reports are checked for identifying and confidential information before release. Reviewer names are disclosed only with explicit permission. Publication of an anonymized report does not itself disclose the reviewer's identity; choosing to sign a report makes that identity public. See our Peer Review Policy.

Transfer of reviews

If a manuscript is transferred, JCQ may request permission to share your report and identity confidentially with the receiving journal, subject to the arrangements explained when you accepted the review. Approved co-reviewers must be identified to the editorial office.

For transfer requirements, see the Portability of Peer Review policy.

Reviewer Recognition

• Reviewers may receive a certificate of recognition for their contribution to the journal. With their consent, reviewers may also be acknowledged for their contributions to the journal's peer-review process.
• Web of Science reviewer recognition is optional and separate from publication of the review history. Reviewers may seek verification using a review-completion receipt, following Web of Science guidance. To preserve anonymity, retain journal-level credit without publicly linking the review to a specific article or posting the report under your name. Recognition alone does not authorise disclosure of confidential material. See Web of Science review privacy settings.