Reviewer Guidelines

Reviewer Guidelines

By agreeing to undertake a review, you simultaneously declare that there is no conflict of interest or other circumstances that could prevent you from providing an impartial assessment of the manuscript. Any potential conflicts of interest must be disclosed to the editor immediately. The manuscript and accompanying materials are to be treated confidentially and may not be shared or used without the editors’ consent.

The review should be constructive, respectful, and specific, with clear references to text sections, figures, and relevant guidelines. Please begin with the most important comments before detailed remarks.

1. Significance and Originality

  • Is the research question or study objective original, important, and clearly defined?

  • Does the article contribute theoretically or practically to the field of emergency medicine?

  • What does the article add to the existing published literature?

  • How will this article help the journal’s readers make better decisions?

2. Scientific Rigor and Reliability

Study Design

  • Is the study design appropriate for the research question or objective?

Data Collection and Analysis

  • Are the methods appropriate and clearly described?

  • What are the strengths and limitations of the chosen methods?

  • Are the participants sufficiently described and clearly defined?

    • Quantitative studies: Are participants representative of the intended population?

    • Qualitative studies: How were participants selected?

  • If applicable, are inclusion and exclusion criteria stated?

  • Is the interpretation/analysis well-balanced and supported by the data?

    • Quantitative studies: Are the data well-controlled?

    • Qualitative studies: Is the data analysis described in sufficient detail?

  • Are study limitations discussed with transparency?

Reporting Standards

Does the manuscript follow the appropriate reporting guidelines? Refer to the relevant guideline based on study type:

3. Presentation and Ethics

  • Are the title and abstract appropriate and aligned with the article’s content?

  • Are references up to date and relevant?

  • Could the clarity, structure, tables, or figures be improved?

  • Are there any ethical concerns or potential conflicts of interest you wish to raise?

4. Review Deadline

Reviews are expected within three weeks of receiving the article link, unless otherwise agreed upon with the editorial team.