For Reviewers
Guidelines for Reviewers
1. Expertise & Acceptance
-
Accept review invitations only if the manuscript falls within your area of expertise.
-
Decline promptly if the manuscript is outside your expertise or if you are unable to complete the review within the allotted time.
2. Conflicts of Interest
-
Disclose any actual or potential conflicts of interest, including shared institutional affiliations, prior collaborations, or financial relationships.
-
The editor will determine whether it is appropriate for the review to proceed.
3. Review Timeline & Deadlines
-
Cureon allows reviewers up to 8 weeks to complete the peer review.
-
If additional time is required, reviewers should inform the editor as early as possible.
-
Reviewers who are unable to accept an invitation are encouraged to suggest alternative qualified reviewers.
4. Ethical Responsibilities
-
Report any concerns regarding plagiarism, data fabrication or falsification, duplicate publication, or unethical research practices to the editor.
-
Assess compliance with ethical standards, including informed consent, confidentiality, and institutional approval where applicable.
5. Confidentiality
-
Treat all manuscripts as strictly confidential documents.
-
Do not share, distribute, or use unpublished material without explicit editorial permission.
-
Maintain reviewer anonymity and do not disclose your identity in reviewer comments.
6. Evaluation Criteria
Reviewers are requested to assess manuscripts based on the following criteria:
-
Originality: Novelty, relevance, and contribution to modern medicine
-
Structure & Clarity: Appropriateness and coherence of title, abstract, introduction, methods, results, and conclusion
-
Methodology & Data: Scientific rigor, transparency, validity, and reproducibility
-
Results & Discussion: Accuracy, interpretation, and alignment with presented data
-
Language & References: Clarity of language, logical flow, and adequacy of citations
7. Writing the Review
-
Begin with a brief summary of the manuscript.
-
Provide constructive, objective, and respectful feedback, highlighting both strengths and weaknesses.
-
Clearly indicate required revisions and distinguish between major and minor concerns.
-
Make a recommendation: Accept / Minor Revision / Major Revision / Reject.
Final editorial decisions are made by the Editor-in-Chief.
