Reviewer Guidelines

Standards for high quality toxicology peer review.

• Study design and appropriateness of endpoints
• Exposure characterization and dose response
• Statistical methods and data handling
• Consistency between results and conclusions
• Relevance to toxicology practice or regulation

• Summarize the study in one or two sentences
• Identify major strengths and limitations
• Highlight missing reporting elements
• Offer prioritized revision recommendations

• Maintain confidentiality of manuscripts
• Declare conflicts of interest
• Avoid using unpublished data

Use this checklist to provide clear, actionable reviews.

• Confirm alignment with journal scope
• Assess exposure measurement validity
• Check dose and timing descriptions
• Review figures and tables for clarity
• Note missing ethics or consent statements
• Suggest improvements for reproducibility

For questions about scope, data reporting, or compliance, contact the editorial team for guidance before submission.

Maintain confidentiality and declare conflicts.

• Do not share manuscript content
• Declare conflicts before accepting review
• Avoid using unpublished data
• Maintain professional and constructive tone
• Report concerns to the editorial office

Structured reviews help editors compare feedback.

• Provide a brief study summary
• List major issues first
• Provide specific line level comments
• Suggest actionable revisions
• Note strengths and limitations
• Avoid personal or dismissive language

High quality reviews combine clear critique with constructive suggestions. Focus on exposure assessment, methodological rigor, and relevance to toxicology practice.

Reviewers should document major issues first, then provide minor comments. Clear structure helps editors compare feedback and make timely decisions.

Clear reviews improve author revisions.

• Focus on major methodological concerns
• Provide specific evidence based feedback
• Separate major and minor points
• Highlight missing data or reporting gaps
• Maintain a professional tone
• Note relevance to safety practice
• Suggest practical improvements
• Flag ethical concerns promptly

These reminders help deliver clear reviews.

• Provide actionable recommendations
• Use evidence based reasoning
• Separate major and minor points
• Highlight missing data or methods
• Maintain professional tone
• Reference key sections in comments
• Declare conflicts of interest
• Submit reviews on time

Consistency improves decision making.

• Provide structured comments
• Use evidence based reasoning
• Highlight key limitations
• Suggest practical improvements
• Note missing reporting elements
• Confirm exposure details
• Report ethics concerns
• Submit reviews on time

These notes help finalize reviews effectively.

• Summarize key strengths
• Identify major limitations
• Provide actionable suggestions
• Confirm data reporting clarity
• Note any ethical concerns
• Submit reviews on time

Short reminders for clear reviews.

• Provide evidence based comments