Reviewer Guidelines

Structured guidance for peer review in depression research.

• Clinical relevance and therapeutic impact
• Methodological rigor and statistical validity
• Transparency in reporting and data availability
• Ethics, consent, and participant protection
• Clarity of conclusions and limitations

• Maintain confidentiality of the manuscript
• Declare conflicts of interest immediately
• Provide respectful, unbiased feedback
• Avoid sharing unpublished data

Reviewers focus on rigor, transparency, and clinical relevance.

• Assess study design and outcome validity
• Evaluate intervention description and fidelity
• Check statistical reporting and effect sizes
• Review data availability and transparency
• Verify ethical approvals and consent
• Identify potential bias or confounding
• Ensure conclusions align with results
• Provide constructive improvement suggestions
• Flag any safety or clinical concerns
• Maintain confidentiality and professionalism
• Submit reviews within agreed timelines
• Disclose conflicts of interest promptly

High quality reviews improve mental health evidence and outcomes.

• Summarize strengths and weaknesses clearly
• Recommend specific revisions when needed
• Assess applicability to clinical practice
• Note data transparency issues
• Evaluate measurement validity
• Highlight overinterpretation risks
• Check clarity of interventions described
• Review adherence and attrition reporting
• Provide respectful and constructive tone
• Flag ethical concerns if identified

Complete, well structured submissions move through review more efficiently and reduce follow up questions.

Clear structure helps authors respond effectively to feedback.

• Summarize the main contribution of the paper
• List major issues that affect validity
• Identify minor revisions for clarity
• Comment on clinical relevance and impact
• Evaluate statistical and methodological rigor
• Check adherence to reporting standards
• Note any ethical or consent concerns
• Provide actionable recommendations
• Maintain respectful and professional tone
• Submit reviews within the agreed timeline

These small checks help keep manuscripts and communications consistent.

• Keep terminology consistent across sections
• Confirm that tables match reported results
• Use clear headings that guide reviewers
• Provide concise summaries of key findings
• Check that ethics statements are visible
• Align figures with outcome descriptions
• Include clinical implications in discussion
• Verify that all links are current

Quality checks reduce revision cycles and accelerate review.

• Use plain language for complex findings
• Avoid unnecessary jargon or acronyms
• Ensure methods are described in sequence
• Clarify participant flow and attrition
• Report baseline characteristics clearly
• State limitations and generalizability
• Include acknowledgments where needed
• Double check citation formatting

Clear scope alignment improves editorial screening outcomes.

• Confirm scope alignment before submission
• Summarize key takeaways for clinicians
• Highlight novelty in the cover letter
• Provide complete author contact details
• Indicate any supplemental material
• Note any clinical trial registrations
• Share funding statements explicitly
• Check spelling of assessment instruments