Evidence Focus
Assess design quality, analytical reliability, and alignment between results and conclusions.
Reviewer Guidelines
Reviewer Guidance for JTT Manuscript Evaluation
Reviewers are expected to deliver specific, evidence based, and constructive reports that help editors make fair decisions and help authors improve manuscript quality.
Rigorous - Review StandardsCanonical Metric
Fast - Publication ProcessCanonical Metric
Global - Research CommunityCanonical Metric
Open - Access PublicationCanonical Metric
Actionable Comments
Separate major concerns from minor edits and provide clear improvement direction.
Professional Tone
Use respectful language and avoid personal or dismissive statements.
Ethics Vigilance
Flag consent, safety, conflict, or data concerns with concise rationale.
Recommended Review Structure
- Brief summary of contribution and scope fit.
- Major methodological concerns with evidence links.
- Minor presentation and clarity suggestions.
- Decision recommendation with concise rationale.
Timeline and Reliability
On time review delivery is essential for fair editorial performance. If availability changes, notify the editorial office early so reassignment can occur without delaying authors. High quality and timely reviews are both required for effective contribution.
Structured reports improve editor confidence and author response quality.
Review Quality Continuity
High value reviewing combines timeliness, methodological precision, and clear recommendation language. Reviewers who consistently separate major concerns from minor corrections help editors make faster and more defensible decisions. Reliable reports should reference evidence directly, identify practical revision priorities, and avoid ambiguous comments that increase author confusion. This disciplined approach strengthens publication quality, reduces unnecessary rounds of revision, and improves trust across the thrombosis research community.
Assessment Discipline
Evaluate design validity, analytical coherence, and conclusion proportionality in a fixed order. Structured assessment improves consistency and makes recommendation logic easier for editors and authors to follow.
Communication Standard
Provide specific, constructive comments with practical next steps. If availability changes, notify the editorial office early so reassignment can protect decision timelines.
Consistent reviewer performance is defined by clear evidence based judgment delivered on schedule.
Practical Review Benchmarks
JTT encourages reviewers to follow a clear performance benchmark on each assignment: acknowledge invitation feasibility early, provide structured major and minor points, link critical concerns to evidence, and submit within the committed window. This benchmark keeps reports useful for editors and actionable for authors. Reviewers who combine methodological precision with dependable timing contribute directly to faster, fairer, and more reliable publication decisions across thrombosis research submissions.
Consistent use of a benchmark approach improves review quality and lowers avoidable second round delays.
Support Better Publication Decisions
Use clear, method focused reviews to strengthen thrombosis research quality and editorial reliability.
