Reviewer Guidelines

Peer review is the foundation of trustworthy scholarship. When you agree to review for Directive Publications, you help editors judge whether a manuscript is valid, original, rigorous, and ethical — and you help authors strengthen their work. We are grateful for the time and expertise reviewers give; it is a genuine scholarly service, and we do not take it for granted.

These guidelines apply across all of our roughly 96 open-access journals in medicine, the life sciences, and public health. Our editorial and review practices are aligned with the COPE Core Practices and follow the ICMJE Recommendations for the conduct, reporting, editing, and publication of scholarly work. They complement our peer review policy, publication ethics, and editorial policies, which we encourage every reviewer to read.

The reviewer's role and why it matters

Reviewers are the independent, expert eyes that editors rely on. Your assessment helps the editor weigh the significance of a study, the soundness of its methods, the integrity of its analysis, and the ethics of the research and its reporting. In doing so you safeguard the scholarly record and — through specific, constructive feedback — mentor authors toward stronger, clearer, and more reproducible work.

We ask you to approach review as a two-way scholarly exchange rather than a gatekeeping exercise. A good report protects readers from unreliable conclusions while treating authors as colleagues whose work you want to see improved.

Our double-blind review process — what reviewers should know

Directive Publications operates double-blind peer review: reviewer and author identities are mutually concealed. This is designed to focus judgement on the science itself and to reduce the influence of an author's name, seniority, institution, or nationality.

To help preserve anonymity on both sides:

• Keep your report and any uploaded files free of self-identifying information — no name, affiliation, funding acknowledgements, or phrasing that would reveal who you are.
• If a manuscript file or its metadata reveals the authors' identity, note it to the handling editor rather than acting on it.
• The editor manages all communication with authors and makes the final decision; reviewers advise but do not decide, and do not contact authors directly.

We operate double-blind review and ask reviewers to help maintain anonymity; we cannot guarantee that identity can never be inferred from a specialised topic or method, so please raise any concern with the editor.

Accepting or declining an invitation

Please respond to review invitations promptly, even if only to decline — a quick reply keeps the process moving for authors. Accept an invitation only if you can answer yes to all three of the following:

• You have relevant subject expertise for the specific manuscript.
• You have no disqualifying competing interest (see below).
• You have the capacity to complete a thorough review within a reasonable timeframe.

If you must decline, a short note is appreciated, and — where you can — suggesting suitable alternative reviewers is a valuable courtesy that helps the editor.

Confidentiality — a privileged document

A manuscript under review is a privileged, unpublished document. Treat it and all associated materials — figures, tables, data, supplementary files, and correspondence — as strictly confidential. Specifically:

• Do not share, discuss, copy, cite, or distribute any part of the manuscript.
• Do not use any information, data, or idea from it for personal or professional advantage.
• Do not involve a colleague or student in your review without the editor's prior approval; if approved, that person is bound by the same confidentiality.
• Delete or destroy manuscript files once your review is complete.

Generative AI and confidentiality

Do not upload any part of a submission — text, figures, tables, or data — into generative-AI chatbots or other public or third-party tools. Doing so breaches author confidentiality and copyright and may expose unpublished work to systems outside our control. Your scientific judgement must remain your own. If you use an AI tool only to improve the language of comments you have already written yourself, you must disclose this to the editor. Note that our similarity screening runs separately on all submissions and is not a substitute for your expert assessment.

Competing interests and when to recuse

Disclose anything that could reasonably be seen to bias your assessment. Competing interests may be:

• Financial — funding, employment, consultancies, patents, or commercial stakes related to the work.
• Personal — a close relationship, friendship, or dispute with an author.
• Professional or academic — recent collaboration, shared institution, or a mentor/mentee relationship.
• Intellectual or competitive — direct rivalry with the work, or strong prior positions that could compromise objectivity.

If you cannot assess a manuscript fairly, recuse yourself. When in doubt, disclose the situation to the editor and let them decide. Our approach follows the guidance in our publication ethics and editorial policies.

What to assess — an evaluation checklist

A complete review usually considers:

• Originality and significance — does the work add something meaningful to its field?
• Methodological validity — are the design and methods sound, appropriate, and adequately described to allow replication?
• Analysis integrity — are the statistics or analytical methods appropriate and correctly applied?
• Support for conclusions — are claims justified by the data presented, without overstatement?
• Clarity and structure — is the writing clear and the argument logically organised?
• Reporting completeness — are relevant reporting standards met, and are data and code available or their availability explained? The FAIR principles (Findable, Accessible, Interoperable, Reusable) offer helpful guidance here; see also the data-availability guidance in our editorial policies.
• Research and publication ethics — appropriate approvals and consent where required, and no evident misconduct.
• References — adequate, accurate, and not conspicuously omitting relevant prior work.

Our author guidelines and each journal's scope can help you calibrate expectations for the manuscript in front of you.

Writing a constructive, specific, and respectful report

The most useful reports are specific and evidence-based. We suggest this structure:

1. Summary — briefly restate the study's aims and findings in your own words, so the editor and authors can see you understood it.
2. Major issues — numbered, substantive concerns that affect the validity or conclusions, each justified with reasons and, where relevant, supporting references.
3. Minor issues — smaller matters of clarity, presentation, or consistency.
4. Confidential comments to the editor — anything you wish the editor to know but not to share verbatim with authors.

Justify every criticism so authors can act on it, and keep your tone professional and courteous regardless of your recommendation. Firm, honest critique and respect are not in tension — the best reviews are both.

Recommending a decision

Provide a clear recommendation — accept, minor revision, major revision, or reject — with reasoning that the editor can follow. Remember that your recommendation is advisory: the editor makes the final decision, weighing all reviews, the journal's scope, and editorial considerations. Place any concern you do not want disclosed to authors in the editor-only field, not in the comments to authors.

Reviewing revised manuscripts

If you are invited to re-review, read the authors' response letter alongside the revised manuscript, check whether your original points were addressed, and focus your attention on what changed. Avoid introducing wholly new demands unless they are genuinely essential to the soundness of the work, and aim for a timely turnaround so authors are not kept waiting through repeated cycles.

Timeliness and communication

Please aim to complete your review within the agreed period. If your circumstances change or you need more time, contact the editor early rather than going silent — a brief message lets the editor keep authors informed or, if necessary, invite an additional reviewer. We ask for reasonable, good-faith timeliness rather than rigid deadlines.

Reporting suspected misconduct

If you suspect plagiarism, data fabrication or falsification, image manipulation, undisclosed conflicts of interest, unethical research, or duplicate or redundant publication, do not confront the author. Raise your concerns confidentially with the handling editor, with as much specific evidence as you can provide. We investigate such concerns following COPE guidance, as set out in our editorial policies and corrections policies.

Recognition for reviewers

Reviewing is valued scholarly work. We encourage you to connect your ORCID iD so that your contributions can be acknowledged, and editors may recognise outstanding reviewers. Because we operate double-blind review, specific manuscript details always remain confidential — recognition acknowledges your service without disclosing what you reviewed.

Join our reviewer pool

We welcome active researchers with relevant subject expertise and a record of scholarly publication. When you join, we ask for your ORCID iD and your areas of expertise so editors can match you with suitable manuscripts. If you would like to contribute, please apply to become a reviewer — your expertise directly strengthens the integrity of our journals.

Related policies and contact

For the wider context of how we work, see our peer review, publication ethics, editorial policies, open access, and copyright policies. Every published article appears under a Creative Commons CC BY 4.0 licence with authors retaining copyright, receives a Crossref-registered DOI (prefix 10.52338), and has its metadata made openly available via OAI-PMH and JATS.

Questions about reviewing, an invitation, or a manuscript in your care can be sent to [email protected]. Our postal address is 30 N Gould St, Sheridan, WY 82801, USA. Ready to contribute? Visit Become a Reviewer or explore our journals.