For Reviewers
Reviewing for this journal
A review for the Journal of Digestive Disorders and Diagnosis is a reading of what the manuscript actually shows, and of whether its conclusions follow from it.
Reviewers are asked for judgment rather than a verdict: what the work establishes, what it does not, and what would have to change for the claims to hold.
Access
Open access
License
CC BY 4.0
Confidentiality
Throughout and after
The arrangement
How review is organized here
Single-blind by default; double-blind review is available on request. Manuscripts that proceed to external peer review are normally evaluated by at least two independent subject-matter experts.
All submissions undergo initial editorial screening. Manuscripts that meet the journal's scope and minimum requirements proceed to independent peer review. A manuscript reaching you has therefore already been assessed for scope and minimum requirements.
Double-blind manuscripts
For double-blind manuscripts, reviewers must not attempt to identify the authors.
Decision criteria
Editorial decisions are based on scope, scientific quality, methodological rigor, ethical compliance, reporting quality, and relevance to the journal.
What to assess
Reading the manuscript
01
Relevance
Is the question about digestive disease or its diagnosis, and is it worth answering? Relevance is about subject, not about whether the finding is positive or striking.
02
Method
Are the design, sample, comparators, measurements and analysis adequate for the question asked? Say where a method limits what can be concluded.
03
Evidence against claims
Hold each claim to the standard its own wording requires. A mechanistic study should not be asked for clinical outcomes; a claim about diagnostic performance or clinical use should be supported by evidence appropriate to that claim.
04
Reporting
Are the methods reported in enough detail to be assessed and repeated? Are ethics, registration, data availability and competing interests declared?
05
Clarity
Can a reader in the field follow the argument, the figures and the tables without reconstructing them?
Conduct
Confidentiality, interests and AI
A manuscript sent for review is unpublished and confidential. Do not share it, discuss it outside the review, or use what it contains.
After submitting the review, reviewers should securely delete downloaded manuscript files and must not retain or use unpublished material.
Reviewers must obtain journal permission before using AI to assist with a review. Any permitted use must be disclosed, and confidential manuscript content must not be uploaded where confidentiality cannot be assured.
Decline a review where you have a competing interest, and say so. Reviewing confers no advantage in the review of a reviewer’s own submissions.
- Write the report you would want to receive.
- Separate what the evidence shows from what you would have done differently.
- Be specific: name the section, the figure or the analysis.
- Recommend, but leave the decision to the handling editor.
Related
The policies behind the review
The editorial policies set out screening, decision criteria, confidentiality and corrections in full. The instructions for authors show what a submitting author has been asked to provide.