Reviewer Resources

Tools and guidance for high quality peer review.

• Structured review templates and scoring rubrics
• Guidance on evaluating therapy outcomes
• Ethics and integrity escalation pathways
• Data transparency and reproducibility checklists
• Communication tips for constructive reviews

• Editorial office support via [email protected]
• Updates on reporting standards for depression studies
• Resources on clinical trial reporting
• Guidance for handling revisions and rebuttals

Resources help reviewers deliver consistent, high quality feedback.

• Structured review templates and rubrics
• Guidance for assessing therapy outcomes
• Ethics escalation pathways
• Data transparency checklists
• Conflict of interest guidance
• Reporting standards for clinical trials
• Tips for constructive feedback
• Support for statistical review questions
• Access to editorial policy updates
• Resources for handling revisions
• Contacts for technical support
• Orientation materials for new reviewers

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