Instructions for Reviewers

  1. Role of the Reviewer

    The reviewer ensures:

    • The scientific quality of the manuscript.
    • Its interest for the journal.
    • Methodological rigor.
    • Adherence to editorial standards.

    Evaluation is conducted in double-blind mode.

  2. Peer-Review Process

    1. Editorial Pre-evaluation

    The editorial team checks:

    • Fit with the journal's scope.
    • Originality of the work.
    • General quality.
    • Absence of plagiarism.

    The manuscript may be rejected at this stage.

    2. Scientific Evaluation

    The manuscript is sent to two external reviewers for detailed analysis.

    Deadline: 4 weeks.

    The reviewer must:

    • Complete the evaluation form.
    • Annotate the text if necessary.
    • Provide a clear and argued opinion.

    In case of conflicting opinions, a third reviewer may be solicited.

    3. Decision

    The editorial committee decides, based on four options:

    • Acceptance
    • Minor Corrections
    • Major Revision
    • Rejection

    After revision by the author, the editors check the compliance of corrections before final acceptance.

  3. Conditions for Accepting a Review

    The reviewer accepts the invitation only if they:

    • Master the subject.
    • Have the necessary time.
    • Present no conflict of interest.
    • Can guarantee confidentiality and objectivity.

    A refusal must be signaled quickly.

  4. Confidentiality

    Manuscripts are confidential documents.

    The reviewer:

    • Cannot share them.
    • Cannot use their content.
    • Does not reveal their role in the evaluation.
    • Deletes any copies after review.

  5. Evaluation Criteria

    The reviewer examines:

    Scientific Relevance

    • Importance of the question.
    • Originality.
    • Contribution to the discipline.

    Methodology

    • Adequacy of methods.
    • Quality of analyses.
    • Validity of conclusions.
    • Ethical compliance (patients, animals, consent).

    Results and Discussion

    • Clarity, coherence.
    • Robustness of data.
    • Adequacy of tables/figures.
    • Grounded interpretations.

    Writing and Form

    • Structure of the manuscript.
    • Quality of the text.
    • Bibliography compliant with Vancouver style.
    • Compliant iconography (300 dpi, anonymization).

  6. Reviewer's Report

    The reviewer transmits:

    1. Comments to the Editor (Confidential)

    • Notes on scientific quality.
    • Major methodological or ethical problems.

    2. Comments to the Author (Anonymous)

    • Constructive criticism.
    • Specific suggestions.
    • Respectful and professional tone.

  7. Final Recommendation

    The reviewer chooses one of the following options:

    • Accepted
    • Accepted with minor revisions
    • Major revision
    • Rejected

    Each opinion must be justified.

  8. After the Review

    The reviewer:

    • Submits their report via the form.
    • Deletes any version of the manuscript.
    • Maintains strict confidentiality of the process.