JALA General Guidelines for Peer Reviewers

1. Is the subject of the paper of sufficient interest to JALA readership?
2. Does this paper report a specific, identifiable, advance in knowledge?
3. Has the work reported in this paper been published before?
4. Are the title and abstract truly descriptive of the content?
5. Are the procedures and methods complete and sufficiently clear that the work could be repeated by anyone knowledgeable in the field?
6. Are the conclusions justified, sound, and logically consistent?
7. Are the references to prior work pertinent and complete?

1. Is the paper as concise as it could be, consistent with clarity?
2. Reviewers are not required to comment on writing style, grammar or punctuation. Instead, reviewers are encouraged to suggest changes that would remove ambiguity or clarify meaning.
3. Are all figures and tables relevant and properly prepared?

1. Papers under review are confidential and should not be discussed or shown to others without the express permission of the executive editor.
2. The identity of reviewers is kept anonymous. A reviewer should reveal his or her identity to an author only with permission from the executive editor.

1. If recommending for publication, please select one of the four categories into which the reviewed manuscript best fits. If a category is suggested by the author, please evaluate the manuscript in light of that suggestion.
2. Assessments should be returned on or before the specified deadline. Reviewers who may not be able to meet a deadline are urged to say so as soon as possible.
3. Please keep in mind that reviews are likely to be relayed to authors as guides for revision. Be honest, but tactful. Offer constructive criticism to the authors so that they can benefit from your expertise. Critique the manuscript, not the author.
4. Any comments for the editor’s eyes only should be shared in a separate note.