Reviewers Guidelines

Reviewer Guidelines

The Journal of Experimental and Clinical Anatomy (JECA) is committed to publishing high-quality scholarly research through a rigorous, fair, timely, and confidential peer review process. The journal greatly values the essential contribution of reviewers in maintaining academic quality, integrity, and scientific standards.

We thank all reviewers for their time, expertise, and service to the scholarly community.

1. Role of Reviewers

Reviewers play a critical role in assisting the Editors to:

  • assess the scientific quality, originality, and relevance of submitted manuscripts;
  • evaluate the methodological rigor and ethical standards of the research;
  • provide constructive feedback to help authors improve their work; and
  • support fair and informed editorial decision-making.

Reviewer recommendations are highly valued; however, editorial decisions are made by the Editors based on the overall assessment of the manuscript, which may include multiple reviews and additional editorial considerations.

2. Invitation to Review

Manuscripts are assigned to reviewers on the basis of their expertise, research background, and suitability for the subject matter of the submission.

If you receive an invitation to review, please consider the following before accepting:

  • whether the manuscript falls within your area of expertise;
  • whether you can provide an objective and unbiased assessment;
  • whether you can complete the review within the requested timeframe; and
  • whether you have any conflict of interest that would prevent you from undertaking the review.

If you are unable to review, please decline the invitation promptly. Where possible, you may suggest alternative qualified reviewers.

3. Confidentiality

All manuscripts received for review must be treated as strictly confidential documents.

Reviewers must:

  • not share, discuss, or disclose the manuscript or its contents with any third party without prior permission from the Editor;
  • not use any unpublished information, data, arguments, or interpretations contained in the manuscript for their own research, professional advantage, or personal benefit;
  • not cite or refer to the manuscript before it has been published;
  • not retain, copy, download, or distribute the manuscript or related materials beyond what is necessary for the review process, and must securely dispose of such materials after the review is completed, if requested by the journal.

If a reviewer wishes to consult a colleague on a specific aspect of the manuscript, prior approval from the Editor must be obtained, and the confidentiality of the manuscript must be maintained.

4. Conflicts of Interest

Reviewers must declare any actual, potential, or perceived conflict of interest before accepting a review assignment.

Conflicts of interest may arise from:

  • recent or ongoing collaboration with any of the authors;
  • shared institutional affiliation;
  • personal, academic, or professional rivalry;
  • financial or commercial interests related to the subject matter;
  • any other relationship or circumstance that may compromise objective review.

If a conflict exists, or if impartial assessment is not possible, the reviewer must decline the invitation or inform the Editor immediately.

5. Objectivity and Professional Conduct

Reviews must be conducted objectively, fairly, and respectfully.

Reviewers should:

  • adopt an impartial and constructive approach;
  • focus on the scientific merit, originality, clarity, and significance of the work;
  • avoid personal criticism of the authors;
  • provide clear, evidence-based comments and recommendations;
  • use professional and courteous language at all times.

Harsh, abusive, dismissive, or derogatory language is not acceptable.

Reviewers should regard themselves as contributing to the improvement of scholarly communication by helping authors strengthen the clarity, accuracy, and quality of their manuscripts.

6. Communication with Authors

Reviewers must not contact authors directly regarding a manuscript under review.

All communication concerning the manuscript must take place through the Editorial Office or handling Editor. If an author attempts to contact a reviewer directly, the reviewer should notify the Editor promptly.

7. Timeliness

JECA aims to provide prompt editorial decisions. Reviewers are therefore expected to complete their reviews within the requested review period, ordinarily within two weeks, unless otherwise specified by the journal.

If a reviewer anticipates delay or is unable to complete the review on time, the Editor should be informed as soon as possible.

If circumstances prevent prompt attention to the manuscript, the invitation should be declined in a timely manner.

8. Scope of the Review

Reviewers are asked to evaluate the manuscript on the basis of its scholarly and scientific merit. In particular, reviewers should consider:

  • the originality and importance of the research;
  • the relevance of the manuscript to the aims and scope of JECA;
  • the clarity and significance of the research question or objective;
  • the adequacy and appropriateness of the study design, methods, and analysis;
  • the validity and reliability of the results;
  • the soundness of the interpretation and conclusions;
  • the organization, structure, and clarity of the manuscript;
  • the relevance, quality, and completeness of references;
  • the appropriateness and clarity of tables, figures, and legends;
  • compliance with ethical standards for research involving humans, animals, or sensitive materials;
  • whether additional literature should be cited;
  • whether the manuscript contributes meaningfully to the field.

Reviewers are not required to provide detailed copyediting or language editing; however, comments on serious problems in language, presentation, or readability are welcome and helpful.

9. Ethical Considerations

Reviewers should alert the Editor if they identify any concerns regarding:

  • plagiarism or substantial similarity to published work;
  • duplicate submission or redundant publication;
  • fabrication, falsification, or manipulation of data;
  • unethical research conduct;
  • inadequate ethical approval or informed consent;
  • inappropriate image manipulation;
  • undisclosed conflicts of interest;
  • concerns related to patient privacy, confidentiality, or animal welfare.

JECA follows the guidance of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) in handling suspected ethical concerns or misconduct.

10. Recommendations to the Editor

Reviewers should provide a clear recommendation to the Editor through the journal’s review form or submission system. Typical recommendations may include:

  • accept;
  • minor revision;
  • major revision; or
  • reject.

Comments intended for the authors should be constructive, specific, and sufficiently detailed to support revision or editorial evaluation.

Comments intended only for the Editor may include confidential concerns about originality, ethical issues, conflicts of interest, or other matters not suitable for transmission to the authors.

Reviewers should avoid making definitive statements in comments to authors about the final acceptability of the manuscript, as the final decision rests with the Editor.

11. Suggested Technical Review Criteria

When preparing a review, the following questions may be helpful:

Scientific Quality

  • Is the study scientifically sound and methodologically robust?
  • Are the objectives or research questions clearly stated and adequately addressed?
  • Are the methods appropriate, valid, and sufficiently described?
  • Are the results presented clearly and interpreted appropriately?
  • Are the conclusions supported by the data?

Presentation and Structure

  • Is the title accurate and reflective of the content?
  • Is the abstract informative and consistent with the main text?
  • Is the manuscript logically organized?
  • Are the section headings appropriate and clear?
  • Is the writing clear, concise, and understandable?

References and Supporting Material

  • Are the references current, relevant, and sufficient?
  • Are there any important omissions from the literature?
  • Are the tables and figures relevant, clearly presented, and adequately labelled?
  • Are legends and titles clear and informative?

Ethical and Editorial Compliance

  • Does the manuscript appear to comply with applicable ethical standards?
  • Are declarations regarding ethics approval, informed consent, conflicts of interest, and funding included where appropriate?

12. Language and Presentation

Manuscripts submitted to JECA should be written in clear academic English. Reviewers may comment on significant language deficiencies where such issues affect scientific understanding, but they are not expected to undertake detailed grammatical correction.

Where language quality is inadequate for proper assessment, reviewers may recommend that the manuscript undergo professional language editing before further consideration.

13. Research Involving Humans and Animals

Reviewers should ensure, where applicable, that manuscripts involving human participants, human data, animals, or biosafety-sensitive materials appear to comply with JECA’s published policies on:

  • research ethics;
  • informed consent;
  • human and animal rights;
  • privacy and confidentiality.

Where required ethical statements or approvals are absent, unclear, or inadequate, reviewers should draw this to the Editor’s attention.

14. If You Accept the Invitation to Review

If you agree to review a manuscript, please:

  • access and review all relevant manuscript files and supplementary material;
  • maintain strict confidentiality throughout the review process;
  • provide an honest, fair, and evidence-based assessment;
  • identify the strengths and weaknesses of the manuscript;
  • give clear, constructive, and actionable feedback;
  • submit your recommendation and comments within the specified timeframe.

15. If You Decline the Invitation to Review

If you are unable to review, please:

  • decline the invitation promptly;
  • provide a brief reason where appropriate; and
  • suggest alternative qualified reviewers, if possible and appropriate.

16. Inadequate Expertise

If you believe that you do not have sufficient expertise to assess the manuscript adequately, you should decline the review invitation promptly and inform the Editor.

17. Reviewer Recognition

JECA appreciates the valuable contribution of reviewers to the journal and to the advancement of scientific scholarship. Reviewer service may be acknowledged by the journal in a manner consistent with reviewer confidentiality and journal policy.