Reviewer Guidelines
Reviewers ensure blood pressure research is accurate, ethical, and clinically meaningful.
Provide constructive feedback that improves clarity and rigor.
Reviewer Role
Reviewers safeguard the quality and credibility of hypertension research.
Constructive feedback improves clarity, strengthens methodology, and supports clinical relevance.
Rigor
Assess study design and analytical quality
Clarity
Improve presentation and interpretation
Ethics
Confirm participant protections
Review Structure
- Brief summary of the contribution
- Major concerns affecting validity
- Minor comments for clarity
- Recommendation with rationale
Comments to Authors and Editors
Provide separate notes for authors and confidential comments to editors when needed.
- Author comments should be constructive and specific
- Editor comments can address ethical or methodological concerns
- Avoid personal identifiers or unnecessary speculation
Evaluation Focus
- Study design appropriateness and bias control
- Statistical reporting and outcome transparency
- Interpretation aligned with results and limitations
- Ethics approval and participant protections
Confidentiality
Reviewers must treat manuscripts as confidential and disclose conflicts promptly.
Timelines
Reviewers are expected to accept or decline invitations promptly and deliver reviews within the agreed timeframe.
Feedback Quality
Provide specific, actionable feedback and cite sections where changes are needed.
Suggested Format
Use numbered comments and group related issues to help authors respond efficiently.
Tone and Respect
Reviews should be professional and constructive. Provide practical suggestions that help authors improve the work.
Key Evaluation Points
- Are measurement protocols described clearly
- Do the results support the stated conclusions
- Are ethics approvals and consent adequately described
- Is the reporting transparent and free of bias
Statistical Review
Comment on statistical transparency, including effect sizes, confidence intervals, and handling of missing data.
Safety Reporting
Check that adverse events and safety monitoring are reported clearly, especially for interventions.
Data Availability Review
Verify that data availability statements are complete and that repository links or access conditions are clearly described.
Conflict of Interest
If a potential conflict exists, reviewers should disclose it to the editorial office and decline the review if necessary.
Intervention Fidelity
Assess whether intervention delivery and adherence are described in enough detail for replication and clinical translation.
Recommendation Rationale
Provide a clear recommendation and summarize the primary reasons supporting your decision.
Ethical Considerations
Highlight any concerns about consent, privacy, or participant protection that require clarification.
Ethical clarity protects patient trust and clinical adoption.
Escalate serious concerns to the editorial office promptly.
Join Our Reviewer Community
Register as a reviewer and contribute to high quality blood pressure research.
