Reviewer Guidelines
Guidance for reviewers assessing sleep research manuscripts.
Journal at a Glance
ISSN: 2574-4518
DOI Prefix: 10.14302/issn.2574-4518
License: CC BY 4.0
Peer reviewed open access journal
Scope Alignment
Sleep physiology, circadian biology, insomnia, sleep apnea, parasomnias, hypersomnias, behavioral sleep medicine, and sleep health across the lifespan. We prioritize clinically relevant findings.
Publishing Model
Open access, single blind peer review, and rapid publication after acceptance and production checks. Metadata validation and DOI registration are included.
JSDR reviewers evaluate methodological rigor, data transparency, and clinical relevance in sleep research submissions. Reviews should be constructive, evidence based, and focused on improving the manuscript.
- Clear research question and scope alignment
- Transparent sleep measurement and scoring methods
- Appropriate analytical methods and validation
- Interpretation aligned with sleep outcomes
- Reproducibility and data sharing considerations
Assess Scope
Confirm alignment with sleep science focus.
Evaluate Methods
Check scoring rigor and validation.
Review Results
Assess clarity, significance, and limitations.
Provide Feedback
Offer actionable, respectful guidance.
- Maintain confidentiality of manuscripts
- Declare conflicts of interest
- Report ethical or data integrity concerns
- Avoid using unpublished data for personal gain
How long should a review take?
Most reviews are expected within 2 to 3 weeks.
Can I decline a review?
Yes. Inform the editor promptly so alternatives can be found.
What if data are missing?
Recommend revisions or request clarifications.
Reviewers focus on rigor, reproducibility, and clinical relevance in sleep research.
- Assess study design and statistical rigor.
- Evaluate sleep measurement and scoring methods.
- Check clarity of outcomes and clinical relevance.
- Review data availability and transparency.
- Identify potential biases or limitations.
- Confirm conclusions align with results.
- Provide constructive and actionable feedback.
- Flag ethical concerns or data issues.
- Recommend improvements for clarity and structure.
- Respect confidentiality and timeline expectations.
High quality reviews focus on methodological rigor and clinical relevance.
- Summarize key strengths and weaknesses clearly.
- Suggest improvements tied to specific sections.
- Distinguish major issues from minor edits.
- Comment on data availability and transparency.
- Flag unsupported claims or overinterpretation.
- Note ethical or patient safety concerns.
- Maintain respectful and professional tone.
- Submit reviews within agreed timelines.
Timely reviews help authors improve manuscripts and keep publication on schedule.
Clear, timely reviews strengthen sleep research and help authors improve their work.
- Outline major and minor concerns separately.
- Reference specific sections when suggesting changes.
- Check methods, statistics, and conclusions for alignment.
- Maintain confidentiality and impartiality.
- Submit reviews within the requested timeframe.
JSDR is committed to rigorous, transparent publishing in sleep science and sleep disorder research. We emphasize reproducible methods, clear clinical reporting, and ethical compliance across all article types.
The editorial office supports authors, editors, and reviewers with clear guidance and responsive communication. For questions about scope or workflow, contact [email protected].
We encourage continuous improvement in reporting practices and share updates that help the community maintain high standards in sleep research and clinical sleep medicine.
Become a Reviewer
Support rigorous sleep research through peer review.