Reviewer Guidelines

Peer review is a cornerstone of scientific publishing and plays a crucial role in maintaining the quality and integrity of the Croatian Journal of Anaesthesiology and Intensive Medicine (CJAIM). Reviewers are essential partners in the publication process, and their expertise ensures that only high-quality, scientifically sound research is published.

REVIEW PROCESS

CJAIM employs a double-blind peer review process:

  • Reviewers do not know the identity of the authors
  • Authors do not know the identity of the reviewers
  • Reviewers are selected based on their expertise in the relevant field
  • Each manuscript is evaluated by at least two independent reviewers
  • Reviewers provide recommendations: Accept, Minor Revision, Major Revision, or Reject

Anonymization Issues

If you can identify the authors from the manuscript content (e.g., self-citations, institutional references, acknowledgements), notify the editor immediately before proceeding with the review. Do not attempt to confirm authorship through external searches.

REVIEWER RESPONSIBILITIES

Confidentiality

  • Manuscripts received for review must be treated as confidential documents
  • They must not be shown to or discussed with others except as authorized by the editor
  • Reviewers must not use information obtained during the review process for personal advantage
  • Reviewers must not contact authors directly

Objectivity

  • Reviews should be conducted objectively
  • Personal criticism of the author is inappropriate
  • Reviewers should express their views clearly with supporting arguments
  • Comments should be constructive and professional

Timeliness

  • Reviewers should complete their reviews within the agreed timeframe (typically 3-4 weeks)
  • If a reviewer feels unqualified or knows that prompt review will be impossible, they should notify the editor immediately
  • If reviewers need an extension, they should contact the editor as soon as possible

Conflicts of Interest

Do not accept review assignments if you have:

  • Personal or professional relationships with any authors
  • Financial interests in the research or its outcomes
  • Competitive research interests
  • Recent collaboration with any authors (within 3 years)
  • Institutional affiliations that may create bias

If you discover a conflict after accepting, notify the editor immediately.

REVIEW CRITERIA

Reviewers should evaluate manuscripts based on:

Originality and Significance

  • Is the research question novel and important?
  • Does the study contribute new knowledge to the field?
  • Is the work of sufficient interest to the journal's readership?

Methodology

  • Is the study design appropriate for the research question?
  • Are the methods clearly described and reproducible?
  • Are the statistical analyses appropriate and correctly performed?

Results

  • Are the results clearly presented?
  • Are the tables and figures appropriate and informative?
  • Do the results support the conclusions?

Discussion and Conclusions

  • Are the findings interpreted correctly?
  • Are the limitations of the study acknowledged?
  • Are the conclusions supported by the data?
  • Is the discussion balanced and fair?

Presentation and Clarity

  • Is the manuscript well-written and clearly organized?
  • Is the English language acceptable?
  • Are the references appropriate and up-to-date?

REVIEW REPORT STRUCTURE

Summary Comments

  • A brief summary of the manuscript
  • Overall assessment of the work
  • Recommendation (Accept, Minor Revision, Major Revision, or Reject)

Major Comments

  • Significant issues that need to be addressed
  • Major methodological concerns
  • Important missing information or analyses

Minor Comments

  • Specific suggestions for improvement
  • Typographical errors or language issues
  • Suggestions for additional references

Comments for the Editor (Confidential)

  • Any concerns about ethics, plagiarism, or duplicate publication
  • Assessment of the manuscript's suitability for the journal

RECOMMENDATIONS

Accept

The manuscript is of high quality and suitable for publication with only minor corrections (if any).

Minor Revision

The manuscript is generally sound but requires minor corrections or clarifications. The changes can likely be made without additional review.

Major Revision

The manuscript has merit but requires substantial revision. Significant concerns need to be addressed. The revised manuscript will likely need to be re-reviewed.

Reject

The manuscript has fundamental flaws, is outside the journal's scope, or the conclusions are not supported by the data.

ETHICAL CONSIDERATIONS

Reviewers should be alert to:

  • Plagiarism or duplicate publication
  • Data fabrication or falsification
  • Missing ethical approvals or informed consent
  • Inappropriate authorship
  • Undisclosed conflicts of interest
  • Unreported use of AI tools

Report any concerns to the editor in the confidential comments section.

REVIEW TIMELINE

  • Initial review: 3-4 weeks from invitation
  • Revision review: 2-3 weeks (if requested)
  • Reviewers will receive reminders if reviews are overdue

REVIEWER RECOGNITION

  • Reviewers' contributions are acknowledged (anonymously) in the journal's annual report
  • Active reviewers may be invited to join the Editorial Board
  • Reviewers receive a certificate of appreciation for their service

CONTACT

For questions about the review process: Email: editorial@cjaim.org