Peer-review Process

Review Policy

Double-Blind Peer Review

The journal maintains a standing reviewer panel constituted across all five tracks. All manuscripts undergo double-anonymised peer review by no fewer than two independent referees, of whom at least one must hold a clinical qualification for any manuscript reporting patient-level data, irrespective of the track to which it was submitted.

STAGE 1

Editorial Screening

The Section Editor of the relevant track applies the Scope Boundary Statement's non-negotiable test: whether the authors have identified and measured or defensibly estimated the clinical outcome their work bears upon. Manuscripts failing this test are declined without external review.

STAGE 2

External Review

Manuscripts passing initial screening are assigned to a minimum of two referees, with a clinically qualified referee mandatory for any patient-level data. Referees assess submissions against four primary criteria:

1. Methodological Rigor Soundness, validity, and robustness of the study design and analysis.
2. Reproducibility Clarity and completeness of methods to enable replication of the findings.
3. Reporting Standards Adherence to the applicable reporting guidelines and standards.
4. Causal Chain Strength Strength and validity of the causal link to a patient outcome.
STAGE 3

Clinical Adjudication

Final editorial decisions on all substantive scientific content are issued by the Deputy Editor-in-Chief for Clinical Affairs acting with the relevant Section Editor, in accordance with the Statement of Editorial Governance in Section 4.

Study Registration Requirement: Prospective registration is required for all interventional studies, and PROSPERO registration is strongly encouraged for systematic reviews.