Turnaround Discipline
Respond to assignments promptly and signal availability constraints early.
Peer Review Standards
Reviewer Guidelines
Reviewer Guidelines
Journal of Migraine Management
Guidance for reviewers delivering rigorous, fair, and actionable migraine manuscript assessments.
45%APC Savings
Global -Research Community
24/7Editorial Support
Reviewer Scope
Reviewers Guidelines and Core Responsibilities
These guidelines support consistent peer-review quality across migraine manuscripts.
Reviewers contribute directly to publication quality by maintaining methodological scrutiny, ethical vigilance, and professional communication standards.
All reviewers are expected to apply evidence-based judgment, avoid bias, and prioritize patient-impact relevance where appropriate.
- Assess scope relevance to migraine and headache medicine.
- Evaluate methodological strength and reporting completeness.
- Identify major validity risks and required corrective actions.
- Disclose conflicts promptly and recuse when needed.
- Communicate feedback respectfully and specifically.
Operational Expectations
Quality, Timeliness, and Documentation
Timely and structured handling improves author experience and decision reliability.
Structured Commentary
Use clear, prioritized comments that distinguish major from minor issues.
Policy Alignment
Apply journal ethics and integrity policy consistently across submissions.
Confidentiality
Protect manuscript confidentiality and avoid unauthorized data sharing.
Reviewers should preserve traceable reasoning in recommendation notes to support final decision transparency.
Decision Support
How to Improve Recommendation Quality
Recommendations should reflect evidence quality, not manuscript ambition alone.
Strong recommendations identify exact validity concerns, explain impact on conclusions, and suggest actionable corrective pathways.
Where findings are promising but under-reported, provide concrete guidance that can convert borderline submissions into publishable evidence.
When rejection is recommended, reasons should be explicit, specific, and proportionate to methodological limitations.
High-value reviews focus on validity-critical issues first, then communication and formatting concerns second. Priority structure helps authors address the most important risks quickly.
Review comments should cite specific sections or tables to improve traceability of requested changes. Specificity increases revision efficiency and reduces misunderstanding.
Where limitations are serious but fixable, provide clear improvement pathways rather than only broad criticism. Constructive direction improves overall manuscript quality.
Reviewers should avoid recommending citations unrelated to methodological necessity or interpretive completeness. Recommendation neutrality is part of ethical review conduct.
Timely review completion supports author planning and improves journal responsiveness to urgent migraine evidence. Reliability is a core reviewer quality marker.
When uncertain about statistical methods, reviewers can request focused clarification rather than making unsupported assumptions. Precision improves fairness and decision quality.
High-value reviews focus on validity-critical issues first, then communication and formatting concerns second. Priority structure helps authors address the most important risks quickly.
Review With Confidence
Use these guidelines to provide evidence-based recommendations that improve manuscript quality.
Editorial support: [email protected]
