Peer reviewers are essential to CJOG’s commitment to publishing rigorous, ethical, and meaningful research in obstetrics and gynecology. Reviewers contribute their expertise, time, and effort to strengthen manuscripts, uphold ethical standards, and ensure scientific accuracy. These guidelines serve as a comprehensive operational manual for all reviewers, detailing responsibilities, ethical expectations, evaluation criteria, confidentiality rules, communication standards, and procedures aligned with COPE and ICMJE best practices.

1. Roles and Responsibilities of Reviewers

Reviewers must approach every manuscript evaluation with professionalism, fairness, diligence, and objectivity.

1.1 Core Reviewer Duties

Provide constructive, detailed, and evidence-based critiques.
Evaluate ethical compliance (IRB approval, consent statements).
Assess scientific rigor, methodology, and statistical validity.
Complete reviews within the specified timeline (typically 14 days).
Maintain confidentiality throughout all stages of the review.
Disclose any conflicts of interest immediately.
Recommend improvements rather than rewriting manuscripts.

1.2 Professional Conduct Expectations

Use objective and respectful language.
Base critiques on scientific merit, not personal opinions.
Avoid derogatory or dismissive comments.
Aim to help authors strengthen their work.

2. Confidentiality and Ethical Conduct

Reviewers must treat manuscripts as confidential documents. Unpublished work is privileged intellectual property.

2.1 Confidentiality Principles

Do not share the manuscript or data with anyone.
Do not discuss content with colleagues or students.
Delete downloaded files after completing the review.
Do not use research ideas or analyses in personal work.
Respect the double-blind or single-blind peer review model.

Violation Example: Using unpublished ultrasound images or data from the manuscript in lectures or presentations is strictly prohibited.

3. Conflict of Interest (COI) for Reviewers

3.1 Situations Creating Conflict of Interest

Recent collaboration with the authors.
Being from the same institution.
Personal, financial, or professional relationships.
Academic rivalry or competitive conflicts.
Having a direct financial stake in research results.

3.2 Reviewer Action

Immediately notify the editor.
Decline the review if conflict is significant.
Request reassignment if impartiality is compromised.

4. Conducting a High-Quality Review

Reviewers must provide thoughtful, structured evaluations that help authors refine their work.

4.1 Review Structure

A typical CJOG review report includes:

Summary of the Manuscript (objective overview)
General Comments (overall strengths and weaknesses)
Major Concerns (methodology, ethics, data integrity)
Minor Concerns (clarity, flow, grammar)
Recommendation (accept, minor revision, major revision, reject)

4.2 What Reviewers Should Evaluate

Component	Reviewer Focus
Abstract	Accuracy, clarity, alignment with manuscript
Introduction	Rationale, importance, scientific background
Methods	Transparency, reproducibility, ethical compliance
Results	Clarity, validity, appropriate statistical tests
Discussion	Interpretation, limitations, clinical relevance
References	Currency, accuracy, appropriateness

4.3 What Reviewers Should Not Do

Rewrite entire sections for authors.
Judge authors personally.
Base decisions on English quality alone.
Perform unrequested copyediting tasks.

5. Ethical Oversight and Misconduct Detection

Reviewers serve as essential ethical safeguards for CJOG.

5.1 Issues Requiring Reviewer Attention

Possible plagiarism or unattributed content.
Duplicate or overlapping submissions.
Data manipulation or statistical irregularities.
Unethical research practices.
Image tampering (e.g., altered ultrasound images).
Missing IRB approval or consent statements.

5.2 Reporting Ethical Concerns

Reviewers should:

Privately notify the editor (not the authors).
Provide clear documentation or rationale.
Cite specific parts of the manuscript as evidence.

6. Reviewer Etiquette and Communication Standards

6.1 Tone and Language

Reviewer critiques must be:

Respectful and constructive
Objective and evidence-based
Free from sarcasm or personal attacks

Example of Constructive Feedback:
"The methods section would benefit from clarifying the patient selection criteria, particularly how exclusion factors were applied."

Example of Unacceptable Feedback:
"The authors clearly don’t understand their own research."

6.2 Providing Actionable Suggestions

Reviewers should:

Explain why revisions are necessary
Offer specific suggestions
Avoid vague comments (e.g., “improve clarity”)

6.3 Communicating with the Editor

Use confidential comments for sensitive concerns
Avoid personal speculation about authors
Notify editors of delays or inability to complete review

7. Confidential Comments to the Editor

Reviewers may submit private comments that are not shared with the authors.

7.1 Appropriate Use of Confidential Comments

Reporting suspected misconduct
Explaining concerns that require discretion
Providing recommendations not suitable for authors
Highlighting conflicts or limitations in expertise

7.2 Inappropriate Use

Sending harsh comments here instead of to authors
Disclosing confidential personal opinions
Providing contradictory advice compared to main review

8. Time Management and Commitment

Reviewers should respond to invitations within 48 hours and complete reviews within set timelines.

8.1 Deadlines

Standard review deadline: 14 days
Revision review: 7 days
Extensions must be requested in advance

8.2 Overdue Reviews

If reviewers cannot meet deadlines:

Immediately notify the editor
Recommend alternative reviewers if possible
Return manuscript promptly if unable to complete

9. Reviewer Expertise and Declining Reviews

9.1 When to Decline

Reviewers must decline a review when:

They lack sufficient expertise
They have a conflict of interest
They cannot meet deadlines
They feel unqualified to evaluate certain methodologies

9.2 Recommended Decline Message

Dear Editor,
Thank you for the invitation. I must decline because [reason].
Best regards,
[Reviewer Name]

10. Formatting the Review Report

10.1 Standard Review Template

1. Summary of Manuscript:
   [Brief, objective overview]

2. Strengths:
   - [Point]
   - [Point]

3. Major Concerns:
   - [Issue + explanation]
   - [Issue + explanation]

4. Minor Concerns:
   - [Issue]
   - [Issue]

5. Recommendation:
   [Accept / Minor Revision / Major Revision / Reject]

10.2 Best Practices for Completing Review Sections

Tip: Provide numbered comments for ease of reference during revision.

11. Reviewing Revised Manuscripts

When authors submit revised manuscripts, reviewers must:

Evaluate whether comments were addressed
Assess quality and clarity of revisions
Review updated figures, tables, or data
Consider whether concerns remain unresolved

11.1 Re-Review Etiquette

Focus on changed elements
Do not repeat previously resolved concerns
Provide clear, updated recommendations

12. Identifying and Reporting Misconduct

12.1 Reviewer Responsibilities

Reviewers must remain vigilant for:

Suspiciously perfect data
Inconsistencies between text and figures
Duplicated images
Identical patterns in different data sets
Plagiarized paragraphs
Unrealistic research timelines

12.2 How to Report

Use confidential comments to inform the editor:

Clearly describe concerns
Provide manuscript location examples
Avoid accusations; present evidence objectively

13. Ethical Use of AI Tools by Reviewers

13.1 Permitted AI Uses

Grammar improvement in review text
Summarizing reviewer thoughts

13.2 Prohibited AI Uses

Submitting AI-generated peer reviews
Uploading manuscripts to external AI tools
Allowing AI to replace critical scientific judgment

13.3 Reviewer AI Disclosure Statement

AI assistance was used only for language correction in this review. All assessments 
are the reviewer’s independent scientific evaluations.

14. Recognition and Benefits for Reviewers

CJOG may acknowledge reviewer contributions through:

Annual reviewer certificates
Publons or ORCID review recognition
Editorial board invitations (based on excellence)
Preferred reviewer status for timely and high-quality reviews

Conclusion

Reviewers are vital to the integrity of CJOG and the advancement of medical science. By adhering to these guidelines, reviewers help ensure that manuscripts are evaluated rigorously, ethically, and constructively. Their contributions strengthen scientific quality, support authors, uphold journal credibility, and promote ethical publishing.

Reviewer Guidelines