Reviewer Guidelines

These guidelines outline what Anesthesiology (AOJ) expects from peer reviewers, to ensure a fair, rigorous, and constructive review process for every submitted manuscript.

Role of the Reviewer

Reviewers play a central role in evaluating the scientific validity, originality, and clarity of submitted manuscripts. Reviewer feedback directly informs the editorial decision-making process (see Peer Review Policy and Peer Review Process).

Evaluation Criteria

When reviewing a manuscript, reviewers are asked to assess:

  • Whether the research question is clearly defined and scientifically significant
  • Whether the anesthetic protocol or methodology is sound, appropriate, and described in sufficient detail to be reproducible
  • Whether the results are presented clearly and are adequately supported by the physiological or clinical outcomes data
  • Whether the conclusions drawn are justified by the results presented
  • Whether the manuscript appropriately cites and engages with relevant prior literature, consistent with the journal's Citation Policy
  • Whether there are any apparent ethical concerns, including undisclosed conflicts of interest with device or drug manufacturers or inadequate ethical approval documentation (see Ethical Approvals & Human/Animal Rights)

Confidentiality

Manuscripts under review must be treated as strictly confidential, consistent with COPE's guidance on confidentiality in peer review. Reviewers must not share, discuss, or use the content of a manuscript under review — including its data, methods, or conclusions — for any purpose other than the review itself, and must not retain copies of the manuscript after the review process is complete.

Conflicts of Interest

Reviewers must disclose any conflict of interest that could compromise their objectivity, including personal or professional relationships with the authors, direct competition in the same research area, or relevant financial interests with anesthetic drug or device manufacturers. Reviewers with a significant conflict should decline the assignment (see Conflict of Interest Policy).

Constructive Feedback

Reviewer comments should be specific, evidence-based, and constructive, providing authors with clear guidance on how to address any identified weaknesses. Reviewers are expected to maintain a professional and respectful tone at all times, focusing feedback on the scientific content of the manuscript rather than the author personally.

Timeliness

Reviewers are asked to complete their review within the timeframe agreed upon at the time of assignment. Reviewers who are unable to meet this timeframe, or who determine partway through that they lack the necessary expertise to properly evaluate the manuscript, are asked to notify the editorial office promptly so an alternative reviewer can be identified.

Recommendation

At the conclusion of the review, reviewers should provide a clear recommendation — Accept, Minor Revision, Major Revision, or Reject — using the journal's Reviewer Evaluation Form, along with the detailed reasoning supporting that recommendation.