Reviewer Resources
Reviewers receive guidance to ensure consistent and fair evaluation.
Structured templates and checklists improve review quality.
Resource Overview
Reviewer resources provide structured guidance for evaluating hypertension manuscripts.
Templates and checklists help reviewers focus on validity, ethics, and clinical relevance.
Templates
Structured review formats for clarity
Guidelines
Reporting standards by study design
Ethics
Consent and data integrity checks
Resources Available
- Reporting guideline references by study design
- Structured review templates and checklists
- Ethics guidance for consent and data integrity
- Data availability review tips
Statistical Review Checklist
- Confirm sample size justification and power details
- Review effect sizes and confidence intervals
- Check missing data handling and sensitivity analyses
- Assess alignment between outcomes and conclusions
Checklist Highlights
- Clear research question and appropriate study design
- Transparent reporting of outcomes and limitations
- Consistency between abstract, results, and conclusions
- Adequate description of statistical methods
Support
The editorial office provides guidance for complex methods, imaging data, and clinical trial reviews.
Reviewers can request specialized statistical review when analyses are complex.
Escalation
If concerns arise about ethics, data integrity, or duplicate submission, notify the editorial office rather than contacting authors directly.
Data Availability Checks
Verify that data availability statements include repository links, access conditions, and any ethical restrictions.
Reporting Guideline References
Use reporting guideline checklists such as CONSORT, PRISMA, STROBE, or CARE depending on study design.
These tools improve consistency in review feedback and decision clarity.
Checklist Focus Areas
- Clear description of interventions and comparators
- Transparent statistical reporting and effect sizes
- Complete ethics approvals and consent statements
- Alignment between conclusions and reported data
Quality Assurance
Use provided templates to document major concerns, minor edits, and recommendation rationale.
Clear structure improves decision speed and author revision quality.
Consistency helps maintain trust in the review process.
Support Requests
Reviewers can request additional guidance for complex methods, device studies, or mixed methods research.
Ethics Flags
If any ethics or consent issues arise during review, alert the editorial office with specific details.
Quick Reference
- Check alignment between objectives and outcomes
- Confirm clarity of intervention descriptions
- Verify data availability statements are complete
Short checklists help reviewers deliver consistent and efficient feedback.
Contact the Editorial Office
We can provide additional resources or guidance during review.
