For reviewers
Reviewing for this journal
A review is a piece of scientific service. It tells the editor whether the work is sound, and tells the authors how to make it better.
The review itself
What to assess
- Does the question belong hereWhether the work makes a substantive respiratory contribution, rather than touching respiratory disease incidentally.
- Are the methods soundWhether the design, sample, measurements and analysis can support the question asked, and whether they are described well enough to repeat.
- Do the results followWhether the data shown support the findings claimed, and whether uncertainty and limitations are reported honestly.
- Is the interpretation proportionalWhether the conclusions stay within what the evidence carries, without over-reaching into causation or clinical recommendation.
- Is the ethics in orderWhether approvals, consent, trial registration, data availability and competing interests are declared as the journal requires.
- Is it clear enough to useWhether a reader in the field could follow the argument, the tables and the figures without guessing.
Say what would change your assessment. A recommendation with reasons attached is more useful to an editor than a verdict.
Conduct
How the journal asks you to work
Accepting the invitation
Accept where you can judge the work competently and return it in the time you agree. Decline promptly where you cannot, and suggest an alternative reviewer if one comes to mind.
The review model
Single-blind by default; double-blind review is available on request. For double-blind manuscripts, reviewers must not attempt to identify the authors.
Competing interests
Decline where you have a competing interest in the work or its authors, including recent collaboration, shared funding, or a commercial stake in the result. Tell the editor rather than reviewing with a caveat.
Confidentiality
A manuscript under review is confidential. Do not discuss it outside the review, do not share it, and do not use its unpublished content in your own work.
Use of AI tools
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.
Writing the report
Separate the comments the authors will see from any confidential note to the editor. Point to the specific section, table or figure each comment concerns, and distinguish what must change from what you would prefer.
After submitting the review
After submitting the review, reviewers should securely delete downloaded manuscript files and must not retain or use unpublished material.
The decision
What your review contributes to
Your recommendation informs the editor; it does not settle the outcome. Editorial decisions are based on scope, scientific quality, methodological rigor, ethical compliance, reporting quality, and relevance to the journal. They are independent of fees, services, membership, and editorial or reviewer roles.
Reviewing confers no advantage in the review of a reviewer's own submissions.