For Reviewers
Reading a manuscript for this journal
Peer reviewers evaluate manuscripts for validity, rigor, and clarity. This page sets out what Journal of ADHD And Care asks of a review, and how to make one useful to the editor and to the authors.
Reviewing confers no advantage in the review of the reviewer’s own submissions.
The review model
How manuscripts are reviewed here
Single-blind by default; double-blind review is available on request.
All submissions undergo initial editorial screening. Manuscripts that meet the journal’s scope and minimum requirements proceed to independent peer review.
Manuscripts that proceed to external peer review are normally evaluated by at least two independent subject-matter experts.
What a review is for
A review tells the editor whether the conclusions follow from the methods and the evidence, and tells the authors how the manuscript could be made stronger. Both audiences read it.
The most useful reviews are specific: they point to the section, the analysis or the sentence at issue rather than to a general impression.
Match the claim to the design
The central question is whether each claim is one the study can support. An observational design can establish association; it cannot establish cause. A single-site study can describe its sample; it cannot describe a population.
Flag overstatement where you find it, and say what wording the evidence would support instead. Assess each study on its own design: observational, qualitative, theoretical, methodological and review manuscripts are each judged by the standards of their own kind.
Reporting and transparency
Check that the methods are described in enough detail to be evaluated and repeated, that the reporting guideline appropriate to the design has been followed, and that the statistics reported match the design.
Every empirical research manuscript must include a data-availability statement.
Confidentiality
A manuscript under review is confidential. Do not share it, discuss it outside the review, or use what you learn from it before it is published.
For double-blind manuscripts, reviewers must not attempt to identify the authors.
Conflicts
Decline a review where you have a financial, professional or personal relationship with the authors or the work that would affect your judgment, or where you cannot review it fairly for any other reason. An early message lets the editor place the manuscript with another reviewer promptly.
Use of AI
Reviewers must obtain journal permission before using AI to assist with a review. Any permitted use must be disclosed, and confidential manuscript content must not be uploaded where confidentiality cannot be assured.
Similarity and originality
Where you suspect duplication, undisclosed overlap or a problem with the data or images, tell the editor rather than acting on it in the review. A similarity report is read in context by the editor, who weighs the source, the extent and the nature of each overlap.
Tone
Write the review you would want to receive. Criticism of the work is the point; criticism of the authors is not, and a review that is dismissive rather than specific will be returned.
When you are finished
After submitting the review, reviewers should securely delete downloaded manuscript files and must not retain or use unpublished material.