Confidentiality
Treat manuscript content as confidential throughout the review lifecycle.
Peer Review Guidance
Reviewer Guidelines
Reviewer Guidelines
Journal of Palliative Care and Hospice
Provide rigorous, fair, and timely peer review that strengthens publication quality across JPCH submissions.
45%APC Savings
GlobalResearch Community
24/7Open Access
Review Standards
Guidelines for JPCH Peer Reviewers
Reviewers are expected to provide evidence-based, constructive, and policy-aligned evaluations.
High-quality reviews focus on validity, reproducibility, and interpretation limits rather than stylistic preference.
Clear separation of major and minor issues improves decision usefulness and revision efficiency.
Evaluation Priorities
What to Assess First
A structured evaluation sequence improves consistency and editorial value.
- Is the study question scientifically meaningful and aligned with design?
- Are methods and analyses sufficiently transparent for reproducibility?
- Do conclusions remain proportional to evidence strength and limitations?
- Are ethics, disclosures, and funding statements complete?
- Are figures and tables consistent with narrative claims?
- Are references accurate and interpretation-supported?
Section-specific comments are more actionable than broad non-specific critique.
Constructive language improves revision quality while preserving reviewer neutrality.
Professional Conduct
Confidentiality, Neutrality, and Timeliness
Reviewer professionalism is critical for fair and reliable editorial outcomes.
Conflict Disclosure
Decline assignments with potential competing interests.
Neutral Recommendations
Avoid unrelated citation demands or non-evidence-based requests.
Timely Delivery
Submit reviews within agreed timelines to support efficient decisions.
Submission Planning
Execution Notes for Higher Acceptance Readiness
Use these practical notes to improve clarity, policy alignment, and review efficiency before final upload.
Editorial planning insight: Review comments should focus on validity, reproducibility, and interpretation boundaries. This approach helps editors and reviewers evaluate the manuscript faster without sacrificing rigor.
Author workflow guidance: Section-specific feedback is more actionable than broad non-specific critiques. Teams that apply this step early usually reduce revision friction and protect publication timelines.
Quality acceleration note: Constructive tone improves revision quality while preserving reviewer neutrality. The same practice also improves metadata quality and downstream indexing discoverability.
Submission strategy point: Confidentiality and conflict rules should be followed strictly throughout review. It supports stronger decision transparency and more efficient peer-review communications.
Publication readiness reminder: Timely completion supports rapid decisions for high-priority submissions. This improves consistency between core manuscript sections and supporting files.
Operational recommendation: For reviewer guidelines planning, document reviewer-response changes against exact manuscript locations; state practical limitations and boundary conditions explicitly. This supports cleaner editorial decisions and faster acceptance readiness.
Contribute as a JPCH Reviewer
Use these standards to support credible and efficient editorial decisions.
Editorial office: [email protected]
