Reviewer Resources
JPAN provides tools and guidance to help reviewers deliver thorough, unbiased, and timely assessments.
Templates
Ethics
Data
Tone
Timing
Support
Resources For Reviewers
ToolsReview Templates
Structured templates help organize feedback and ensure major issues are addressed clearly.
Ethics Checklists
Checklists support identification of missing approvals, conflicts, or data transparency issues.
Reporting Standards
Guidance on reporting checklists improves reproducibility and review consistency.
Communication
Provide clear recommendations and maintain professional tone. Structured feedback improves author responses.
Timeline Management
Accept reviews only when you can meet deadlines. Notify the editorial office if delays occur.
High-quality reviews directly improve manuscript clarity and strengthen the evidence base.
Need Reviewer Support?
Contact [email protected] for assistance with review scope or policy questions.
Additional Notes
GuidanceSubmission Support
Contact [email protected] with brief questions to avoid delays during submission.
Workflow
Clear documentation and timely responses help keep editorial timelines on track.
Visibility
Well structured manuscripts improve search visibility and long term impact.
Service Support
CommunityGuidance
Editors and reviewers receive templates and policy guidance to support consistent decisions.
Recognition
Service contributions may be acknowledged through certificates and professional visibility.
Community
Participation strengthens the pancreatic research ecosystem and improves quality.
Applying Reviewer Resources Effectively
Process ToolsTemplate Driven Consistency
Use structured templates to separate major methodological risks from minor presentation edits. Template driven reviewing improves clarity, reduces contradictory feedback, and helps editors synthesize recommendations faster across manuscripts with different complexity profiles.
Checklist Guided Appraisal
Method and ethics checklists provide a repeatable path for evaluating design coherence, reporting quality, and integrity safeguards. Consistent checklist use strengthens report quality and reduces omission of critical concerns that can affect editorial decision reliability.
Communication Quality Controls
Resource packs should be used to improve tone, precision, and actionability of review comments. Clear communication supports faster revision cycles and helps authors respond effectively to substantive scientific issues.
Consistent use of reviewer templates and appraisal checklists reduces ambiguity, improves decision comparability, and helps editors synthesize recommendations faster without losing scientific rigor.
Structured tools improve report consistency, editorial synthesis, and revision quality.
Structured review tools improve report comparability and reduce avoidable editorial delay in revision cycles.
Structured resources reduce response variability.
Tools strengthen reviewer consistency.
