Reviewer Guidelines for JHD
Provide evidence-based, constructive peer review for hereditary disease manuscripts.
How to Deliver Effective Evaluations
Use a clear sequence so authors and editors can act on feedback efficiently.
Begin with a concise summary of the manuscript, followed by major concerns, then minor comments. Focus on hereditary disease relevance, methodological quality, and whether conclusions are supported by data.
When possible, reference accepted standards or published evidence to justify recommendations. Avoid requests that do not materially improve scientific validity or interpretation quality.
Core Reviewer Obligations
Professional conduct is mandatory throughout peer review.
Confirm Expertise
Accept assignments only when topic and methods are within your competence.
Declare Conflicts
Disclose relationships that could influence impartial judgment.
Protect Confidentiality
Do not share manuscript content or use unpublished data externally.
Report Sensitive Concerns
Use confidential notes to editors for ethics or integrity risks.
If you cannot complete a review on time, notify the office quickly so reassignment can occur. Timely communication protects author timelines and review quality.
What Strong Reviews Include
High-value reviews are specific, balanced, and actionable.
Highlight strengths alongside limitations and prioritize issues that affect data reliability, variant interpretation, or clinical utility. Separate mandatory revisions from optional improvements.
Recommendations should map clearly to decision categories and should not include personal or non-scientific commentary.
Practical Checklist for Hereditary Manuscripts
Use a focused structure to improve clarity and editorial utility.
Design Validity
Assess whether methods align with the stated hereditary hypothesis.
Variant Logic
Check evidence quality supporting variant interpretation outcomes.
Reporting Clarity
Confirm that core methods and limits are transparent to readers.
Ethics Coverage
Verify consent, privacy safeguards, and conflict disclosures.
Writing Actionable Comments
Comments should guide revision, not only highlight problems.
For each major issue, state why it matters and what evidence or clarification would resolve it. This helps authors respond efficiently and helps editors map recommendations to decision categories.
Align Recommendations With Evidence
Editors rely on precise reviewer rationale to make consistent decisions.
When recommending major revision or rejection, identify the exact evidence gaps and indicate what would be required to resolve them credibly.
Support Rigorous Peer Review
Help JHD maintain high publication standards in hereditary disease science.
For support: [email protected]
